Introduction

Licensing agreements on ebooks have altered the core of what libraries have done for hundreds of years: own books and lend them. Public libraries aim to adapt to what their communities need and with the rise of the Internet and the new digital landscape came a new way that library users began to read – through ebooks. While many may have hoped that ebooks would represent a new horizon for a book reading reality of unfettered, instantaneous, simultaneous access, that was not to be the case (Sang, 2017). Instead, the ecosystem surrounding ebooks has become increasingly rigid (Sang, 2017). A widespread culture of licensing rather than ownership of digital content has risen and in the case of ebooks, has resulted in agreements in which libraries are paying for limited licence agreements at unreasonable prices. While the challenges of ebook licensing agreements affect all types of libraries, this chapter will focus specifically on how this issue has affected public libraries in Canada and the United States, first by providing a background of the shift to licensing agreements over ownership for ebooks, followed by an overview of the current situation. This chapter will then offer an analysis of the challenges ebook licensing agreements pose to library collection management, and finally, an exploration of potential responses for a way forward.

Background and Current Context

In order to understand the implications of the issue of loan licensing on ebooks, it is critical to understand the legal boundaries which have previously permitted libraries to own and lend physical books. Library lending and copyright holders’ intellectual property rights have both historically been upheld through copyright law. In Canada, the first domestic Copyright Act came into force in 1924, and has been amended several times, most recently in 2022 (Copyright Act, 1985). The first copyright laws came into effect in the United States in 1790, and in 1909 the “first sale doctrine” was codified into United States law, via the Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus case, which argued that publishers could not set re-sale prices (Geist, 2009). Effectively, the first sale doctrine granted permission to consumers to sell or lend their personally owned copy, as long as it was legally purchased (Geist, 2009; Katz, 2016). Included in the Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus case was the assertion that the failure to “preserve the first sale doctrine would place a ‘weapon’ in the hands of publishers” with which publishers could gain the power to set any conditions, wielding undue control over consumers (Geist, 2009, p.67). Canada’s comparable “doctrine of exhaustion” is contained in Canadian jurisprudence, and historically both doctrines have both prevented excessive publisher control and enabled libraries to purchase works, own them, and lend them, all within the bounds of copyright law (Geist, 2009; Katz, 2016). However, as this chapter will later explore, the doctrines of first sale and exhaustion only apply to the sale of books, and with licensing agreements rather than sales for ebooks, these doctrines can be circumvented. The previous balance between publishers’ interests and libraries’ interest worked well in part due to the physicality of books – friction existed in library lending through the limitation of geographical constraints, meaning that borrowers had to physically go into libraries, only one book could be lent at one time, and any risks of illegal copying of the book was limited by the sheer difficulty of photocopying an entire book (Gasaway, 2000; Geist, 2009).

While both publishers and libraries contribute to the ecosystem of information, publishers and libraries essentially come from different places and thus have differing values, which, in the digital age, has exacerbated these differences (Gasaway, 2000). Libraries are interested in the free flow of information by providing free access for their library users, while commercial publishers are interested in not only the actual creation of information (i.e., books), but also making a profit to keep themselves and their authors/creators afloat (Gasaway, 2000). That said, public libraries have evolved to put in place professional ethics which stipulate both respecting intellectual property rights and providing public information access (ALA, 2021). Despite libraries contributing billions of dollars by purchasing copyrighted works, publishers seem to think that libraries believe information should be completely free (ALA, 2021; ALA, n.d.-b; Gasaway, 2000). While untrue, the notion establishes a dichotomy with libraries and publishers at opposing sides (Gasaway, 2000).

With the rise of ebooks taking hold over the course of the early to mid-aughts, as Sony eReaders and Amazon Kindles hit the market, concerns specifically throughout the large, multinational, commercial publishing world arose around the risks of increased ease of pirating digital copies of books, and the potential therein to devastate the publishing industry (Pew Research Center, 2012; Geist, 2009). Facing this new issue, these commercial publishers altered their models from selling ebooks in perpetuity to selling licences, effectively leasing ebooks instead (Marwell, 2011; Geist, 2009). Licensing agreements are viewed by publishers as a way to add “friction” to accessing ebooks – an effort to add constraints that function similarly to the friction of borrowing physical books from libraries, as discussed above, making borrowing ebooks less convenient than simply buying ebooks, as well as purportedly protecting ebooks and eaudiobooks from copyright infringement (Perzanowski & Schultz, 2018). In a 2011 letter to librarians, the multinational publishing company HarperCollins explained their new loan licensing agreement model, which permitted 26 loans before re-purchase would be necessary, citing concerns that selling ebooks would harm the budding ebook industry, contribute to pressure on bookstores, as well as harm sales and thus authors’ livelihoods (Marwell, 2011). The number of 26 loans was determined based on an assumption that a comparable physical book would only circulate about 26 times before deteriorating to the point of necessitating repurchase (De Castell et al., 2022). The 2011 HarperCollins letter further promised that despite the new licensing terms, the subsequent purchases would have a reduced price – akin to the paperback prices that come after initial hardcover book sales, all with the mission to balance the needs of libraries with the needs of publishers in the digital era (Marwell, 2011).

While libraries and publishers are key players in ebook licensing agreements, corporations known as aggregators, vendors, or intermediaries, who host and offer the digital infrastructure through which library ebooks are read by library users, are also key players (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Pew Research Center, 2012). For the purposes of this chapter, they will be referred to as ebook providers. These corporations, such as Overdrive, Hoopla, Freading, and many others, have bourgeoned alongside the rise of digital econtent, offering digital infrastructure, for which libraries must make agreements and pay fees in order to loan books via their platforms (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Pew Research Center, 2012).

Publishers have also added additional friction by binding ebooks to the platform within which they are accessed, accomplished through proprietary Digital Rights Management (DRM), also known as digital locks, which are technological protections that prevent copying or downloading (Sang, 2017; University of Alberta, 2020). However, DRM has effectively created closed platforms within which information can be commodified, controlled, and monitored (Sang, 2017). Ebooks have established a new set of power relations between libraries, publishers, and aggregators, which produces several challenges discussed in the next section.

Challenges

Libraries have a commitment to their communities, often pledged in their collection development policies, to provide public access to the information held in their collection, regardless of format (ALA, n.d.-a). However, current licensing agreements are causing many libraries to struggle to financially maintain access – a key element of collection management, due to a combination of loan limitations and licensing agreements, as well as price of econtent (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Blackwell et al., 2019; CFLA, 2019). Given the challenging loan licensing terms and steep prices, public libraries are prevented from establishing diverse, long-term ecollections and from serving library users via preservation of econtent (CULC, 2019; De Castell et al., 2022). Key issues have arisen due to libraries, publishers, and aggregators having not only differing goals, but also incomplete and unequal access to data regarding library ebook lending (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). In order to evaluate how exactly licensing models cause issue for libraries and library collections, the next section will first detail the terms of licensing agreements, followed by an analysis of the potential contributing factors behind publishers’ concerns about library elending.

Terms of Licensing Agreements

Typical ebook licensing models vary along three central factors: (1) how many users can have access at one time, (2) the number of times the book can be loaned/circulated, and (3) the time limit of the licence (Riaza & Celaya, 2015). Among these, the most common agreements tend to be one copy/one user (referred to as OC/OU) at a time, often paired with a combination of 26 or 52 loans or a set amount of time, often two years, whichever comes first (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Blackwell et al., 2019). These agreements also vary by publisher, by book, and by platform (Blackwell et al., 2019; Giblin et al., 2019a). Time-limited, or metered, licences are a challenging arrangement for libraries, as 79% of titles expire before they surpass the circulation limit (Potash, 2019). In fact, based on an Australian study of almost 3.5 million library ebooks, the median check-outs per title is only thirteen (Giblin et al., 2019b). With time-limited licence agreements, libraries face repetitive re-evaluation and re-purchasing of ebooks, some of which may never even come close to reaching a comparable number of circulations that would wear down a physical book (Blackwell et al., 2019).

Additionally, while certain promises, such as in HarperCollins’ 2011 letter, have been made implying that prices would decrease after time had passed, neither ebook prices nor loan licence terms seem to change with less recent books, even when these books might no longer be on shelves in bookstores (Marwell, 2011; Giblin et al., 2019b; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Publishers have also set the prices of ebooks for libraries at costs ranging from close to the price of ebooks for consumers to rates ten times higher, which campaigns like the Canadian Urban Library Council’s (CULC) #eContentForLibraries, have set about advocating against (CFLA, 2019; CULC, n.d.). As of 2019, Canadian public libraries were spending 20-30% of their collections budget on econtent, and these numbers will have increased significantly since the Covid-19 pandemic’s widespread library closures wherein relying on library econtent became a necessity (CFLA, 2019; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Libraries also pay fees to each ebook provider they work with, which can range anywhere “from a few thousand per year to more than $80,000 (all figures inCAD) at the largest libraries.” (CFLA, 2019, p.2). Additionally, it is not transparent how much of those fees end up supporting authors/creators (CFLA, 2019). Library collection budgets simply cannot stretch as far in the digital ecosystem with these unfair constraints (Blackwell et al., 2019).

Underlying all of these unreasonable licensing agreement terms and prices, is the fact that the market is unstable – there has been no settling of term agreements, but rather a changeable patchwork across platforms, titles, and companies that libraries are left to navigate repeatedly, trying to get the best value with their tax-payer dollars for the titles and formats their library users want the most (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). A key example of ebook market instability is the 2019 Macmillan embargo, which came into effect in July of that year and embargoed all new Macmillan titles in ebook format for libraries, restricting libraries’ access to all but one copy, until eight weeks passed (Sargent, 2019). Macmillan then cancelled the embargo in March 2020, after less than one year, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic (Sargent, 2020).

Overall, the changes of loan limitations and licensing agreements demonstrate the extent that these agreements have effectively circumvented the protections based in copyright law and jurisprudence of first sale and exhaustion doctrines for libraries and rendered library access to books in digital format altogether under the control of publishing companies. Libraries, by their very nature, do not have the financial means to negotiate for better agreements, leaving them in a vulnerable position (Cichocki, 2007/2008; Feldman, 2019; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Given the terms listed above, it can be difficult to understand the publisher’s side, apart from monopolistic power and capitalistic insatiability; however, this chapter will next explore factors that may be contributing to publishers enforcing these arguably over-reaching contracts with elending.

Publishing Perceptions of Libraries and Lack of Shared Data

Among the publishing world, the troubling sentiment has arisen that library lending of digital content is significantly detracting from publisher’s sales with claims being made that Amazon is partially responsible for spreading this notion (Fowler, 2021; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Albanese, 2019; Emanuel, 2020). Amazon has become a major player in the publishing world, but for the past decade has maintained the policy of not selling (or rather, not leasing) any of their exclusive ebook and eaudiobook content to libraries (Fowler, 2021). Amazon owns not only certain devices through which their ebooks are read, but in many cases, they also own the publishing company and thus the copyright, as well as the platforms through which ebooks are read and sold (Fowler, 2021). They are effectively creating their own exclusive, private library, and many have argued that they stand to benefit the most from squeezing public libraries out of the ebook market, as they are likely to gain a large share of the sales that frustrated library users may make when they cannot access ebooks from their library (Fowler, 2021; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Albanese, 2019; Emanuel, 2020).

Indeed, the perception that libraries’ access to ebooks, particularly new titles, is actively disadvantaging publishers and authors came to a head with the aforementioned Macmillan embargo. On July 25, 2019, Macmillan CEO, John Sargent, wrote a letter to Macmillan authors, agents, and illustrators describing the company’s plan and reasoning for the embargo – namely that they had tested such an embargo with their Tor imprint, in order to address “growing fears that library lending was cannibalizing sales…” (para 1). Sargent goes on to state that in the US “45% of ebook reads … [were] being borrowed for free from libraries” (2019, para 2). Sargent’s letter is inflammatory and concerning, but also rife with inaccuracy due to a lack of transparent shared data between ebook providers, publishers, and libraries (Potash, 2019; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Overdrive CEO, Steve Potash, responded to Sargent’s letter disqualifying Sargent’s metric of “ebook reads” as “pure fallacy” (2019, para 6; 2019, para 1). Potash also asserts that the Tor ebooks only had a small selection available in library catalogs and thus, the conclusions Sargent drew did not have sufficient evidence and were therefore unsubstantiated (2019). Additionally, Sargent’s letter implies that these “ebook reads” were free, effectively invisibilizing the fact that libraries pay significant amounts for digital access, and in cases where ebooks expire before they reach their circulation limit, each “read” is costing the library far more than Sargent’s imagined estimation of “free” (Potash, 2019; Sargent, 2019). However, with the current arrangement between libraries, ebook providers, and publishers, the publishers do not have access to checkout/circulation data of digital materials, as the ebook providers only give aggregate information about how many licences were sold (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). While there are likely both public privacy and proprietary interests at play, the limited data provided to publishers – data on the sale of licences only – also means that publishers are left imagining that ebooks are being read by hundreds or thousands of people for one sole library-paid fee (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). From that perspective, it could follow that the only thing sustaining ebook sales would be the licensing agreements; however, this is likely not the case, as previously mentioned, most ebooks circulate a median of thirteen times before the time limit is up (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Whether library access negatively influences sales in a harmful way was also a concern raised with print books; overall, an improved system to share data between the three parties is necessary, as well as real data and research to determine how much, if at all, library ebook access influences ebook sales (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022).

On the opposite side, there are many proponents of the notion that libraries actually contribute to publishers’ sales, by aiding in discoverability, which is essentially free marketing and promotion, not to mention the fact that readers who use the library also purchase books and are thus the publisher’s customers (Pew Research Center, 2012; Albanese, 2018; Burleigh, 2017). Yet, without proper data, neither claim can be fully substantiated, and as Potash remarked, it is certainly not wise to base business decisions on fictions (2019). The challenge of licensing agreements for library ebooks is reinforced by a larger structural move away from digital ownership, which the next section will consider.

Commodification of Information

The era of ebook licensing agreements coincides with a wider cultural shift towards streaming, licensing, and leasing, rather than ownership (Perzanowski & Schultz, 2018). It is not only libraries whose access to ebooks is limited under licensing agreements, but consumers as well, yet many people may be unaware that when they purchase an ebook, they are only purchasing a licence (Perzanowski & Schultz, 2018). The consequence of this arrangement is that that the copyright owners – publishing companies or their parent corporations – can effectively make any changes to what users believe they own, at any time. For example, ebooks that are licensed on Amazon’s Kindle, are subject to any change as the company sees fit – in one instance, they remotely removed the ebook 1984 by George Orwell from all individuals’ devices, due to a publishing dispute (Perzanowski & Schultz, 2018; Sang, 2017). Ultimately, with licensing, users have reading access to a work until any such time as the corporation changes their mind for any reason, which could easily allow for private censorship (Perzanowski & Schultz, 2018; Sang, 2017).

Additionally, the aforementioned DRMs, or proprietary digital locks, also known as Technological Protection Measures (TPMs), further constrain individuals’ ability to utilize licensed works as they constrain fair use/fair dealing rights (United States rights/Canadian rights, respectively). Fair dealing is an exception within Canadian copyright law that allows for copy and use of a work under specific circumstances, which include “research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review and news reporting” and are subject to consideration of several fair dealing factors (Copyright Act, 1985; De Castell et al., 2022, p.12). The United States’ Copyright Act codifies fair use for similar purposes as the Canadian equivalent, but the major difference is that the United States fair use rights list is illustrative, while the Canadian fair dealing list is exhaustive, meaning that fair dealing in Canada is limited in application to only the situations listed above (De Castell et al., 2022). Further, TPMs are included in the Canadian Copyright Act, which declares that it is illegal to bypass any TPM, with only a few narrow exceptions, resulting in the risk of copyright violation even if an individual’s usage is protected under fair dealing (University of Alberta, 2020). Thus, DRMs/TPMs that intend to protect copyright infringement can also end up prohibiting fair dealing access in Canada, further reinforcing the shift towards commodifying information.

Many arguments for the importance of libraries maintaining their ability to provide free access to information cite democracy as the strongest reason to advocate for libraries (Geist, 2009; Sang, 2017; Laughlin, 2010; De Castell et al, 2022; Gasaway, 2000). Indeed, Gasaway writes that, “the commodification of information is a threat to the public’s access to information,” and it is easy to see, with the Kindle and 1984 example above, exactly how this has already manifested; further, it is easy to imagine the extent to which it could go (2000, p.133). In this way, licensing agreements have the potential to erode unfettered, uncensored access to information, which is arguably fundamental for democracy (Geist, 2009; Gasaway, 2000). Additionally, licensing agreements ultimately prioritize those with the sufficient means, whether financial or otherwise, to access them. Even in the information age, the power of information flows most easily to those with privileged access politically, economically, socially, and culturally (Gasaway, 2000). Libraries interrupt this flow, by aiming to offer free access of information to all, regardless of their situation or level of privilege. In this way, libraries – and both their print and digital collections – maintain the potential to act as an equalizing force in a society that is becoming increasingly unequal. Yet, while libraries continue to be a strong element of the public sphere, their necessary participation in the market threatens to further erode and commodify access to information (Trosow, 2015). The next section will explore what potential responses libraries can take to protect and improve the public’s digital information access through libraries.

Responses

Librarians have made suggestions as to what they see as reasonable compromises and solutions to the issue of unfair licensing agreements, such as more reasonable prices and having a wider variety of licensing options available (Blackwell et al., 2019; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). However, there are also ideas that aim to remove or circumvent licensing situations altogether. Broadly, these include (1) reform through legislation; (2) controlled digital lending; and (3) library controlled elending platforms (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). While each are separate approaches, utilizing several or all of these in conjunction may aid in changing the culture around econtent (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). For example, the CFLA has presented their recommendations to the Canadian government, which include ideas such as offering a tax incentive to corporations that provide fair pricing and licensing agreements, encouraging publishers to offer agreements for libraries that are more comparable to what they offer individuals, as well as authorizing controlled digital lending (hereafter CDL) for out of market content (2019). The next sections will take an in-depth look into each of the three options listed above.

Legislation and Legal Reform

One way that libraries can advocate for more reasonable licensing or digital sales is to take the issue to the courts, as occurred with the Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus case over one hundred years ago (Geist, 2009). This option directly targets the unfair prices and licensing models and requires libraries to lobby for legislative or legal methods to ameliorate the situation (Geist, 2009; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; ALA, 2022b). Since legislative reform has historically worked there is hope that it could do so once again (Geist, 2009). There have been two recent cases that have had mixed results with this method – in 2021 both Maryland and New York State passed laws that would require publishers to license ebooks to libraries “on reasonable terms” (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022, p.367; ALA, 2022b). However, both laws were later struck down, with courts citing that these laws would be in conflict with federal copyright law (Brittain, 2022;  ALA, 2022a). A major drawback is thus illustrated: attempted legislative reform has the potential to end in a win for the publishers instead. Another drawback to this method is that the potential laws, if they do successfully pass, may not be specific enough and may leave too much space for interpretation (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). For example, the ambiguity of “reasonable terms” may be interpreted very differently to libraries versus publishers (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). Additionally, pursuing legislative reform could involve the risk that if terms of sale are legislated, publishers could simply choose not to make ebooks available for sale for libraries at all.

Controlled Digital Lending

Controlled digital lending represents another way forward that involves making a digital lending system that aims to mimic the physical environment as much as possible, thus staying within current legal standards for library lending (De Castell et al., 2022). There have been some excellent United States and Canadian pieces that provide thorough discussions detailing how and why CDL can work for libraries (please see Suggested Further Reading below). CDL involves the library legally purchasing copies of a work, digitizing one, and offering it as an option for checkout to library users, with DRM technology in place to prevent copying or redistribution (De Castell et al., 2022; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). CDL must have an “owned to loaned” ratio, meaning that they only loan what they have legally purchased and have ownership over, as per the doctrine of exhaustion/first sale doctrine or equivalent (De Castell et al., 2022, p.2). Additionally, the digital copy is loaned in place of a physical copy, so when it is checked out, it’s physical copy “parent” is also unavailable (De Castell et al., 2022). In a Canadian public library context, this option is arguably backed by Canadian copyright law and recent case laws, which recognize the principle of exhaustion, as well as technological neutrality – which asserts that copyright decisions must not be determined by format, and by fair dealing (De Castell et al., 2022).

While fair dealing may be of use for academic libraries pursuing CDL, for public libraries, a significant amount of the collection, particularly fiction, would not be protected under fair dealing (De Castell et al., 2022). However, public libraries could opt to use CDL only for works that are within the public domain, only for non-fiction works, or they could take actions such as adding geographic limitations – having CDL available for local residents only (De Castell et al., 2022). CDL is an option that would allow libraries to regain some control over their digital lending, enable preservation of works that they legally own, all the while keeping pace with technological changes and user expectations, within a relatively reasonable budget (De Castell et al., 2022). Nonetheless, it is recommended that any libraries attempting CDL seek prior legal counsel (De Castell et al., 2022).

Library Controlled ELending Platforms

Lastly, libraries could endeavor to create their own platforms from which to lend ebooks (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). For this method, libraries must work together to develop ebook hosting infrastructure that is library controlled (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). This option would ideally also offer libraries a way to generate key data about their ecollections, such as information on titles expiring versus hitting their checkout limit (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). The possibility of libraries creating and hosting their own ebook lending platforms has the potential to save money that libraries spend on their agreements with current ebook providers – money that could then be invested into more ebooks (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). There have been a few cases in which libraries have attempted to host their own elending platform, namely the Douglas County Model, and the current Digital Public Library of America model (DPLA). In 2012, Douglas County Public Library developed their own ebook platform using Adobe Content Server (ACS), which was also used by Overdrive at the time, and they used VuFind as their open-source front-end discovery layer (Hogan, n.d.). However, it appears that they no longer operate using this method, as their public ecollections are now hosted by Overdrive and Hoopla (DCL, n.d.). The Marmot Library Network also attempted the Douglas County Model, but after three years decided to move to Overdrive and abandon their ACS, citing issues of the time-consuming process of original cataloguing, issues between their Integrated Library System and the ACS, as well as an inability to acquire books in high demand by their community (Thomas & Noble, 2016). Operating an elending platform may be a challenging endeavor, particularly for individual libraries with already strained budgets; however, many of these challenges can be met by combining efforts with other libraries and library organizations, such as in the case of the DPLA.

The DPLA has recently created a new library-controlled elending platform, “Palace Marketplace,” which uses the New York Public Library’s open-source elending app, “SimplyE,” and functions much like OverDrive, lending new, in-demand titles of both ebooks and eaudiobooks, but with added benefits of maintaining user privacy and offering flexible licensing agreements to participating libraries (Breeding, 2021; Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; DPLA, n.d.). The strategy of libraries working together for econtent has had a recent success of entering into a deal with Amazon Publishing, in which the latter has agreed to license 10,000 of their ebooks to the DPLA (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022; Klar, 2021; Fowler, 2021). Library controlled elending platforms work best with multiple libraries joining forces and enough technologically savvy employees to develop and maintain the infrastructure (Hogan, n.d.; Thomas & Noble, 2016). With joint efforts such as DPLA, libraries have greater negotiating power for licences, can split the cost, and bring the breadth of ebook data back into the hands of libraries (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022).

Conclusion

Ebook licensing agreements have become the widespread norm for library ebook access. Yet, between libraries and publishers, these agreements, the terms of which are set by publishers, have devolved to an extent that libraries are struggling to maintain their access to ecollections. Publishers perceive libraries as harming their bottom lines and libraries are in a particularly vulnerable place, without much negotiating power. However, there are several optional ways for public libraries to move forward, in effort of balancing their financial capacity while maintaining their ethical principle of respecting intellectual property rights. Legal or legislative advocacy and action, utilizing controlled digital lending, as well as participating in joint library-controlled ebook platforms are current possible responses to the challenges libraries are facing (Giblin & Weatherall, 2022). An area for further research would be the possibilities of public library publishing endeavours, which could align well with joint library elending platforms.

Sources for Further Reading:

American Library Association (ALA). (n.d.-b). Copyright: An interpretation of the Code of Ethics. Retrieved October 25, 2022, from: https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics/copyright

This source provides integral information for understanding the library Code of Ethics regarding copyright. It explains how libraries balance their goal of providing access to information while respecting intellectual property rights.

Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA). (2019, January). CFLA-FCAB Position Statement E-Books and Licensed Digital Content in Public Libraries. http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CFLA-FCAB_position_statement_ebooks.pdf

The CFLA position statement is helpful for understanding details of the situation Canadian public libraries are facing with regards to accessing econtent. It is also a valuable example of one of the ways in which Canadian libraries advocate to the federal government.

De Castell, C., Dickison, J., Mau, T., Swartz, M., Tiessen, R., Wakaruk, A., & Winter, C. (2022,  February 9). Controlled digital lending of library books in Canada. Partnership, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v17i2.7100

This article outlines, in outstanding detail, legal considerations that may affect controlled   digital lending in Canada. It offers practical advice and several options to help libraries  embark towards implementing controlled digital lending, within the bounds of the current  laws. It is also based, in part, on the earlier United States work.

Fowler, G. (2021, March 10). Want to borrow that e-book from the library? Sorry, Amazon won’t let you. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/10/amazon-library-ebook-monopoly/

A relevant news article that provides an overview of Amazon’s involvement in the publishing world. It also relates the history and current situation between Amazon and libraries.

Gasaway, L. N. (2000). Values conflict in the digital environment: librarians versus copyright  holders. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 24(1), 115-162. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cjla24&i=125

Through this work, Gasaway offers critical information for understanding the organizational values of both publishing and libraries, and how the conflict has led them two to become opposing sides on the issue of United States copyright. It covers elements that both separate and connect publishers and libraries, drawing the conclusion that both sides must avoid exaggerations in order to find a middle ground.

Geist, R.A. (2009). A “license to read”: the effect of e-books on publishers, libraries, and the first  sale doctrine. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Review 52(1), 63-100. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/idea52&i=67

Geist provides a helpful legal perspective on the issue of ebook licensing agreements and libraries. It includes a discussion of the history surrounding United States copyright, the doctrine of first sale, as well as detailing how it previously protected library lending and outlining the consequences of not having a digital equivalent.

Giblin, R. & Weatherall, K. (2022). Taking control of the future: Towards workable elending. In J. Coates, V. Owen, & Reilly, S., (Eds.), Navigating Copyright for Libraries (pp. 351-377). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110732009

This is a current, key piece that includes relevant research for understanding how libraries, publishers, and ebook providers relate in terms of unfair prices and licensing agreements, as well as a discussion of options for the future. This source is in a book that is also very relevant for further reading on the topic of copyright and libraries.

Perzanowski, A., & Shultz, J. (2018). The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital  Economy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10524.001.0001

This book provides relevant background information for understanding ebook licensing agreements amidst wider cultural movements away from ownership. The authors make the case that consumers must be aware of the potential consequences, and it would overall be advised to re-introduce ownership into the digital milieu.

Pew Research Center. (2012, June 22). Part 1: Libraries, patrons, and ebooks. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/06/22/part-1-an-introduction-to-the-issues-surrounding-libraries-and-e-books/

This source provides an interesting and relevant background of research regarding the tense relationship between libraries and publishers, as well as the influence of corporations, from the time just after publishing companies began to license rather than sell ebooks. However, many aspects have changed since then; nonetheless, it offers a clear picture of the situation at that time.

Sang, Y. (2017). The politics of ebooks. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 13(3), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.13.3.211_1

Sang provides an apt discussion of ebooks in the context of legal, sociocultural, political, and technological constraints. It outlines the issues associated with closed platforms, Digital Rights Management, as well as library elending.

References

Albanese, A. (2018, September 4). Penguin Random House changes library e-book lending terms. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved from: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/77904-penguin-random-house-changes-its-library-e-book-terms.html

Albanese, A. (2019, August 27). Bibliotheca calls out Amazon for meddling in the library e- book market. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved from: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/81046-bibliotheca-calls-out-amazon-for-meddling-in-the-library-e-book-market.html

American Library Association (ALA). (n.d.-a). eBooks. Retrieved October 25, 2022, from: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/e-books

American Library Association (ALA). (n.d.-b). Copyright: An interpretation of the Code of Ethics. Retrieved October 25, 2022, from: https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics/copyright

American Library Association (ALA). (2021, June 29). Code of Ethics. [Originally published 1939]. Retrieved from: https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

American Library Association (ALA). (2022a, January 3). ALA disappointed in New York Governor’s rejection of ebook equity legislation. ALAnews.  https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/01/ala-disappointed-new-york-governorsrejection-ebook-equity-legislation#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20DC%20%E2%80%94%20On%20Dec.,bipa rtisan%20support%20in%20June%202021

American Library Association (ALA). (2022b, April 26). [Letter to Advocate for Legislative Reform]. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/ebooks/RI-S2842-ALA-Final-Submitted.pdf

Blackwell, M., Mason, C., & May, M. (2019). Ebook availability, pricing, and licensing: A study of three vendors in the U.S. and Canada. Computers in Libraries, 39(9), 20-28. https://www.infotoday.com/cilmag/nov19/Blackwell-Mason-May–Ebook%20Availability-Pricing-and-Licensing.shtml

Breeding, M. (2021, August). Public library partnerships support new ebook lending. Smart Libraries Newsletter, 41 (8). Retrieved from: https://librarytechnology.org/document/26574

Brittain, B. (2022, June 14). Maryland ebook licensing law is unconstitutional, U.S. court rules.  Reuters. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/maryland-ebooklicensing-law-is-unconstitutional-us-court-rules-2022-06-14/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20A%20federal%20court,and%20digital%20audiobook s%20is%20unconstitutional

Burleigh, D. (2017). Using consumer data to illustrate how the library channel drives digital sales. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33, 380-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9555-y

Canadian Urban Libraries Council (CULC). (n.d.). eContentForLibraries. Retrieved October 30,  2022, from: https://econtentforlibraries.org/

Canadian Urban Libraries Council (CULC). (2019). Statement on changes to digital loans for public libraries. http://culc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CULC-CBUC-Statement-on-Digital-Loans.pdf

Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA). (2019, January). CFLA-FCAB Position Statement E-Books and Licensed Digital Content in Public Libraries. http://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CFLA-FCAB_position_statement_ebooks.pdf

Cichocki, K.M. (2007). Unlocking the future of public libraries: Digital licensing that preserves access. University of Baltimore Intellectual Property Law Journal, 16(1/2), 29-60. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ubip16&i=31

Copyright Act. (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-42.pdf

Digital Public Library of America (DPLA). (n.d.). Palace marketplace licensing models.  https://ebooks.dp.la/licensing/

 Douglas County Library (DCL). (n.d.). Library home page. https://www.dcl.org/

De Castell, C., Dickison, J., Mau, T., Swartz, M., Tiessen, R., Wakaruk, A., & Winter, C. (2022,  February 9). Controlled digital lending of library books in Canada. Partnership 17(2). https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v17i2.7100

Emanuel, G. (2020, January 6). Inside the e-Book ‘war’ waging between libraries and publishers. GBH News. Retrieved from: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2020/01/06/inside-the-e-book-war-waging-between-libraries-and-publishers

Feldman, S. (2019, July 12). Libraries must draw the line on e-books. Publishers Weekly.  Retrieved from: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industrynews/libraries/article/80689-libraries-must-draw-the-line-on-e-books.html

Fowler, G. (2021, March 10). Want to borrow that e-book from the library? Sorry, Amazon won’t let you. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/10/amazon-library-ebook-monopoly/

Gasaway, L. N. (2000). Values conflict in the digital environment: librarians versus copyright  holders. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 24(1), 115-162. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/cjla24&i=125

Geist, R.A. (2009). A “license to read”: the effect of e-books on publishers, libraries, and the first  sale doctrine. IDEA: The Intellectual Property Review 52(1), 63-100. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/idea52&i=67

Giblin, R. & Weatherall, K. (2022). Taking control of the future: Towards workable elending. In J. Coates, V. Owen, & Reilly, S., (Eds.), Navigating Copyright for Libraries (pp. 351-377). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/Boston. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110732009

Giblin, R., Kennedy, J., Pelletier, C., Thomas, J., Weatherall,K., & Petitjean, F. (2019a). Available- but not accessible? Investigating publisher e-lending licensing practices. Information Research, 24(3). Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3346199

Giblin, R., Kennedy, J., Pelletier, C., Thomas, J., Weatherall,K., & Petitjean, F. (2019b). What can 100,000 books tell us about the international public library e-lending landscape? Information Research, 24(3) http://informationr.net/ir/24-3/paper838.html

Hogan, P. (n.d.). Douglas County Libraries’ DIY e-book hosting. ALA Tech Source. [Blog]. https://www.ala.org/tools/article/ala-techsource/douglas-county-libraries-diy-e-book-hosting

Katz, A. (2016). Copyright, exhaustion, and the role of libraries in the ecosystem of knowledge. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 13(1), 81-123. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/isjlpsoc13&i=83

Klar, R. (2021, June 2). Amazon takes big step in e-book deal with libraries, but activists seek more. The Hill. Retrieved from: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/556381-amazon-takes-big-step-in-e-book-deal-with-libraries-but-activists-seek-more/

Marwell, J. (2011, March 1). Open letter to librarians. HarperCollins [Blog].  https://harperlibrary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/open-letter-to-librarians.html

Perzanowski, A., & Shultz, J. (2018). The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital  Economy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10524.001.0001

Pew Research Center. (2012, June 22). Part 1: Libraries, patrons, and ebooks. Pew Research Center https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/06/22/part-1-an-introduction-to-the-issues-surrounding-libraries-and-e-books/

Potash, S. (2019, August 1). Macmillan publishes a work of fiction. Overdrive Steve. [Blog]. https://overdrivesteve.com/macmillan-publishes-a-work-of-fiction/

Riaza, M., & Celaya, J. (2015). A guide to ebook licenses purchase models for libraries and  publishers. Bookwire and Dosedoc.com. https://www.dosdoce.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Guide-to-Ebook-Licensing-Purchase-Models-Bookwire-and- Dosdoce.pdf

Sang, Y. (2017). The politics of ebooks. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 13(3), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.13.3.211_1

Sargent, J. (2019, July 25). [Letter to Embargo Library e-Content]. https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/004/4222-1.pdf

Sargent, J. (2020, March 17). [Letter to End Library Embargo]. https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/004/4353-1.pdf

Thomas, J., & Noble, M. (2016). The Douglas County Model in Western Colorado.  Journal of Library Administration 56(3), 326-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2016.1146538

Trosow, Samuel, E. (2015). The commodification of information and the public good: New  challenges for a progressive librarianship. Progressive Librarian, 43, 17-29. http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL43/017.pdf

University of Alberta. (2020). Technological protection measures (Digital locks). Opening Up Copyright Instructional Module. https://sites.library.ualberta.ca/copyright/modules/technological-protection-measures-digital-locks/