In response to some of the criticisms I’ve seen leveled in Teleread comments and some quite inaccurate blog posts from those more sympathetic to the publisher side, I have been interested in the numbers but hadn’t made time to pull stats because that just isn’t something I work with normally– my libraries’ fantastic Collection Development team has that thoroughly under control.

However, I got motivated very quickly after seeing Jason Griffey’s post on the subject which left me unsettled for two reasons:

1. I feel like it could be misrepresented as undermining the library case.

2. It samples from an institution that is in no way representative of the institutions most affected by the Harper Collins decision. Public libraries serve those who can’t afford to go to college period and those who are no longer in school. It is the effect on these populations that drive us to be concerned about this recent attack on a necessary public good. And while I am not the best at keeping up with publishers, it appears to me that Harper Collins’ target market isn’t primarily academic.

I also think Jason is absolutely right that treating the digital like the physical is insanity of the highest order though. We need new models and perhaps by pulling together data we can have some better conversations on what the future could and should look like.

So, thanks to the help of our Collection Development Librarian and Horizon master extraordinaire, Logan Macdonald, I have some numbers to compare.

My public library system has 7 branches and a bookmobile and serves a large county in a mixed urban and rural setting. We have a pretty good mix of demographics in nearly every category you could think of. Because of funding and philosophy changes in the last 3-5 years, much of our collection is new and so these numbers don’t typically represent materials that have been in circulation for 20-50 years. These are almost exclusively materials purchased since 2007.

Logan has this to add, “As a percentage, our numbers are probably low compared to other libraries due to our ‘popular browsing’ collection development policy.  We usually weed things before they get old enough to have more than 26 circs.”

Once I subtracted the CDs and DVDs from the circ numbers he gave me, I found 7566 items in our collection that had circulated 27 or more times. Just for kicks and giggles, I also identified that 942 items had circulated 53 times or more (we would have had to buy them twice).

Jason ends up with a number of $12.99 average for an item, and although I agree with one of the comments on the post that $25 is probably a more accurate number, for argument’s sake I’ll use 12.99.

If we were to have to replace these materials under a 26 use policy, this would cost our library system $110,518.92. A number Logan tells me is very close to our total adult nonfiction budget for 2011.

That’s why public libraries are concerned. To give you an idea of how large of an impact this is– our collections budget was $1,135,664 in 2009, according to the statistics from Colorado’s Library Research Service. Throughout the state of Colorado for 2009, materials budgets ranged from $4,577,200 for the Denver Public Library system to a mere $232 for one small rural library. (Yes, you read that number right– TWO HUNDRED THIRTY TWO).

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I believe that despite some assertions that we don’t matter economically to publishers– it’s clear by their actions that we do. It’s easy for librarians to say, “3 or 4% doesn’t matter”, but to a business person 3 or 4% is important, especially when you’re talking about a number in the millions of dollars. (And others agree).

So let’s compare numbers– what does this look like in your library?

ADDENDUM: I was asked to add some information to this post, so here’s what else I’ve got: Our total number of items is 383,353 (288,793 excluding CDs and DVDs) and our total number of circs in 2010 was 1,715,538 (1,111,850 excluding CDs and DVDs). As far as age for our circ data– it goes back to when we automated in 1969, but as I mentioned almost all of our materials are less than 3-4 years old. An additional problem with dates for us is that Horizon does not store statistics per item on an annual basis unless the period is set up ahead of time, and right now the only periods are pre-Horizon and post-Horizon.

By now we’ve had time for the various responses to the Harper Collins proposed licensing changes to sink in. There are many different camps within the library and publisher worlds, some are still in favor of a boycott, whether explicit or implicit.

We can debate whether a boycott would work or not from many different perspectives. Sarah Glassmeyer does a fair job of arguing that it doesn’t make economic sense. Admittedly,  I disagree for two reasons:

1. She doesn’t account for the free advertising that libraries provide publishers as supporters of book culture. I don’t know how or if you could measure that impact, but I’d wager it’s not insignificant enough to be ignored as part of the equation if we really are trying to do the math.

2. If publishers didn’t feel that the library market was not economically significant, then why would they have taken this step? Anyone who doesn’t think that publishers are concerned about the money they stand to lose (or gain) from libraries need only ask um, Harper Collins. That’s why they are making these changes, remember?

But I don’t want to belabor that. As I mentioned in my first post on the issue– my concern isn’t with Harper Collins specifically, it’s with the chipping away of our limited bargaining power as consortia. To me, this is the greater issue– we are already so fractured and I want to see us pull together. I am not in favor of a boycott so much as I am in favor of only bargaining in groups or as an industry as a whole. This is a role I’d like to see Library Renewal take.

So, it’s with great disappointment that I don’t see anyone taking a leadership role in this regard, instead there is too much talk in libraryland on the subject of our reactions. And so we stand divided just as we did before Harper Collins made their move.

First of all, why the concern with “how we look”? Do you really think that makes a difference in negotiations? Because. It. Doesn’t. It’s all about business, baby. People blow up on each other all the time but the mighty dollar marches on. But if we *are* concerned with how we look, then we should show a bit more solidarity with our fellows– whether we agree or not. Because how we look is a an unorganized mob who are just as quick to jump on each other as we are on those who threaten our institutions. I think it makes us look bad when we stand up in a public forum and refer to our colleagues as “hysterical”.

As Kate did a wonderful job of articulating, a call for boycott isn’t necessarily a hysterical reaction at all. It’s one reaction of many. And as someone who wants to see the profession become stronger– to pull together– to be able to negotiate as an industry and not a scattered collection of tiny players– then I don’t want to diss any of my fellows for their response. We can have that conversation another time in another forum.

Solidarity is powerful. Only by supporting each other will we get anywhere. To draw an analogy, don’t you think that most union members think those protesting at the Wisconsin capital were over the top? Would most of them occupy the state house? No…. but they understand the power of standing together and have the thoughtfulness to appreciate their contribution. Everyone has a different contribution to make– some us like stirring up emotion as incitement towards action, some of us are better at a bargaining table, but a healthy group needs to be a big tent that includes acceptance of all types.

So libraryland, here’s what I’d like to see. How about instead of a post shushing your colleagues, why not a statement like this?

“We recognize that there are many responses to the issue of Harper Collins changing their licensing practices and we agree that this issue is urgent and important to libraries everywhere. While we don’t necessarily choose to endorse a boycott at this time, we support our colleagues whose moral compass leads them to this conclusion. As a vital part of a functioning democracy, libraries must continue to have a place at the negotiating table in all matters of content licensing and the public good of equal access to information must be preserved. We hope that as content and copyright realities change for consumers and publishers, that libraries will not be forced to make choices in the future that include limiting of access based on economic realities– whether driven by publisher choice or by lack of sufficient funding for collections”.

There. Now is that really so hard?

This post (and blog), is shared with a Creative Commons License.

I am reposting this document, drawn up by Sarah Hougton-Jan and Andy Woodworth because I support this effort and I hope to see it expanded.

What do *you* think? Are there parts you would change? Is there something forgotten? I’ve seen at least two other related efforts– one claims to be an “eBook Buyer’s Bill of Rights” which makes some very good points as well, and an earlier effort by other librarians, “The Readers’ Bill of Rights for Digital Books”.

I am excited to see the energy around this issue, and I just hope it will be sustained. In the meantime, one way to keep track of the action is a website put up by Brett Bonfield and Gabriel Farrell, which will document the status of whether librarians should be boycotting Harper Collins or not: http://boycottharpercollins.com/.

Some aren’t sure that a boycott is the right response at this point– but I don’t think anyone engaged in any negotiation or argument knows exactly what the right tactic is at any given point. It’s important that we begin to do something– something serious enough to convey to the other players that we’re not going to be left out of the conversation without a fight.

To those who afraid we’re short-changing our patrons if we boycott Harper Collins, I say that’s exactly how we got into this powerless position in the first place. I’m sorry, but trading short-term mediocrity for longer term solutions does not serve our patrons. It just makes us look like fumbling idiots who can’t deliver a quality product to their fancy new eReader they got for Christmas.

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights is a statement of the basic freedoms that should be granted to all eBook users.

The eBook User’s Bill of Rights

Every eBook user should have the following rights:

• the right to use eBooks under guidelines that favor access over proprietary limitations
• the right to access eBooks on any technological platform, including the hardware and software the user chooses
• the right to annotate, quote passages, print, and share eBook content within the spirit of fair use and copyright
• the right of the first-sale doctrine extended to digital content, allowing the eBook owner the right to retain, archive, share, and re-sell purchased eBooks

I believe in the free market of information and ideas.

I believe that authors, writers, and publishers can flourish when their works are readily available on the widest range of media. I believe that authors, writers, and publishers can thrive when readers are given the maximum amount of freedom to access, annotate, and share with other readers, helping this content find new audiences and markets. I believe that eBook purchasers should enjoy the rights of the first-sale doctrine because eBooks are part of the greater cultural cornerstone of literacy, education, and information access.

Digital Rights Management (DRM), like a tariff, acts as a mechanism to inhibit this free exchange of ideas, literature, and information. Likewise, the current licensing arrangements mean that readers never possess ultimate control over their own personal reading material. These are not acceptable conditions for eBooks.

I am a reader. As a customer, I am entitled to be treated with respect and not as a potential criminal. As a consumer, I am entitled to make my own decisions about the eBooks that I buy or borrow.

I am concerned about the future of access to literature and information in eBooks.  I ask readers, authors, publishers, retailers, librarians, software developers, and device manufacturers to support these eBook users’ rights.

These rights are yours.  Now it is your turn to take a stand.  To help spread the word, copy this entire post, add your own comments, remix it, and distribute it to others.  Blog it, Tweet it (#ebookrights), Facebook it, email it, and post it on a telephone pole.

To the extent possible under law, the person who associated CC0 with this work has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work

But your attacker isn’t rational. He knocks the wallet out of your hand, now is brandishing a knife. He doesn’t just want your wallet, he wants more. As you try to explain that you don’t have anything else, the conversation becomes even uglier– his words less coherent, his gestures more menacing, you’re shoved a couple of times and then finally– the knife comes at you.

You duck. At least I hope like hell you do. And I hope the next thing you do is punch the guy as hard as you fucking can. Ok, maybe you’re not like this usually, but I think there comes a time and a place when you’ve got to straight up defend your own life. Get away from that knife.

I can’t help but feel that if it isn’t time for libraries to duck the knife and start swinging that we are but seconds away.

By now, most people reading this will be aware of the situation that drives me to this conclusion. HarperCollins (note: I’m not providing a link here) has decided to change the terms of their library ebook licensing in such a way that hurts consumer choice, limits access for those without sufficient means, and generally just slaps the face of the people who love to read and want to be their customers. This has me upset enough but there has been tremendous groundswell on the net and people much smarter and more articulate than me have written about it. See: Sarah’s post for one of my favorites. Bobbi does a great job of laying out the full situation and providing links to many other posts as well.

Some folks are echoing Cory Doctorow‘s sentiment, “libraries should just stop buying DRM media for their collections. Period. It’s unsafe at any speed.” And he may be right, but right now we just don’t have the power to make a stand that makes a difference. If we tried to resist individually, we’d be picked off, one at a time. Our patrons would flock to neighboring communities (or away from us completely), and then one by one we’d lose funding. The community isn’t going to understand it’s not librarians who make these decisions. Which leads me to what I see is a much bigger issue.

Overshadowed in all this is another announcement that Overdrive made that disturbs me much more. They say, “Another area of publisher concern that OverDrive is responding to is the size and makeup of large consortia and shared collections.”

Ok, that’s it. Game over. The only possible way that our institutions of public good– our libraries– can afford to bridge the content divide between those who have and those who have not, is by banding together and buying as a group. If the publishers are attacking this model, then they are attacking libraries themselves.

So, I say, let’s duck the knife. I know it’s going to be tough but let’s have some strength of character and start to get serious about preserving ourselves. I say rather than even let this begin, that we flat out refuse to buy electronic content for distribution except as consortia. Don’t let these folks divide and conquer– let’s hold on to our areas of strength and push back.

And let’s drop the barriers to collaboration. Let’s bring our consortia together and insist that we negotiate only as an industry. Perhaps this is the role Library Renewal can play? Will they? If not, who? Who will answer the call? It’s going to take more than just libraries and librarians, but if we don’t have a cohesive banner to rally around– how will they know how to help?

As someone who loves change, I am truly ecstatic right now to announce that in a few short weeks, I will begin a new job as the IT manager for the Anythink Libraries (formerly known as the Rangeview Library District). This district in the North Denver metro area was once one of the lowest funded and least used districts in Colorado– however, under the visionary guidance of their director and a phenomenal staff, Anythink has truly brought about a “revolution” in Rangeview libraries. Their willingness to innovate, to experiment, and most importantly, to listen to their community, has resulted in a library system seeing tremendous growth in usage and support even at a time when most other systems are unfortunately being challenged.

I think there’s a lesson to be learned about the importance of advocacy for libraries and the importance of letting those with vision in the library field do their best work. If we bring out the best in our people– we will have libraries that amaze, delight, and remain relevant for years to come.

Last October, I had the pleasure of participating in Anythink’s “Tech Fest” staff day event with Melissa Kiser and David Lee King. The enthusiasm in the staff was infectious. This video shares a taste of what I saw that day.

Emerging Technologies: Virtualization in Libraries
When: Monday, June 28th (10:30 AM – 12:00 PM)
Where: Washington Convention Center, Room 143B/C

A panel presentation on the use of virtualization technologies in large research, mid-size, and public libraries to reduce costs and staffing, improve reliability and security, and contribute to green initiatives. Speakers will represent a variety of backgrounds and types of libraries and will describe how virtualization in their setting is related to other emerging technologies such as cloud computing and identity management. Following the panel presentation, time will be available for questions and discussion.

Featured panelists are: Dave Pcolar, Systems Specialist for University Libraries at UNC Chapel Hill; Stu Baker, Associate University Librarian for Library Technology at Northwestern University; and Matthew Hamilton, Library Innovation and Technology Manager at Boulder Public Library.

Just kidding.

This year’s Computers in Libraries conference was themed “Information Fluency: Literacy for Life”, and the task of defining and supporting new literacies has rightfully risen to the forefront of librarian’s minds– highlighted by the IMLS Museums, Libraries, and 21st Century Skills initiative and the recent findings of the Knight Foundation’s report Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age. Further evidence that it is libraries that fill an crucial gap in addressing the digital divide are the findings of the recent US Impact study confirming that a large portion of the “have nots” in the digital age rely on us for our infrastructure.

While this isn’t news to those of us in libraries, I do think that at this crucial time, it’s finally getting attention outside of libraries– and that is huge. Just as many who are tied to the idea that we’re not much more than a warehouse for books are wondering if we have a place anymore, there comes confirmation that we are important for oh so many more reasons as well. So to my mind, the efforts of the librarians who are producing the Libraries and Transliteracy site are especially relevant and commendable.

At this year’s conference, I had the honor and privilege of presenting with two of the authors of the Libraries and Transliteracy blog, Buffy Hamilton and Bobbi Newman. Bobbi introduced the concept of Transliteracy, “the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks” and Buffy highlighted the role of school libraries in supporting transliteracy and tied it to research done by Dr. Deborah Brandt.

My portion of the talk was to discuss how traditional IT departments must redefine their missions and orientation to better integrate with the rest of the library and its services (in fact, the IMLS recommends that a 21st century organization dedicates 75% of its resources to supporting  21st century skills and that “strategic planning for physical and IT infrastructure is fully aligned with the institution’s goals to enhance audiences’ 21st century skills“). We know that many claim that “IT is dead” and while I find that proclamation to be a bit premature, I see a lot of parallels with the pressure that libraries have felt with the changes of the last 15 years.

I’m not that happy with the Slideshare conversion. Because I use the “Presentation Zen” style in my slides, when you click through you get very little of what the talk was about. If you follow the link to the Slideshare site, you can read the notes I included which tell more of the full story. The best compliment I received after the presentation was when John Blyberg tweeted “Wish our profession had more IT managers like @brewinlibrarian“. I see a bright future for libraries, but we must leverage our IT resources well to make it happen.

Links to some of the resources I used or recommend:

• A Global Imperative, The Report of the 21st Century Literacy Summit, The New Media Consortium, 2005
• Horizon Report 2010 Edition, New Media Consortium
• Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture:Media Education for the 21st Century, MIT & The MacArthor Foundation 2009
• Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age. Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, 2009
• Museums, Libraries, and 21st Century Skills, Institute of Museum and Library Services
• Transliteracy.com
• Libraries and Transliteracy
• Libraries and Technology, American Library Association’s State of American Libraries 2010
• CyberNavigators and YouMedia at Chicago Public Library
• Scratch Design Workshops at Wilmette Public Library
• SOPAC, the Social OPAC
• GT System, Game Tournament software shared by Ann Arbor District Library
• Reading Record, Summer Reading software shared by Westminster Public Library in Colorado

I want thank all of the people who have helped and supported me on my career path. I hope that I can contribute to the field and help other new librarians in some comparable way.

Thank you! And….. now it’s time to get to work….. more good stuff on the way!

Besides, my focus is learning more PHP these days and I don’t really need to go any further with HTML at this point. PHP applies to the Drupal stuffs we’re working on at MPOW.

So when I say the site is finished… well, dear reader, you and I both know it’s not true. I’ll continue to try new things, probably break it once in a while, and just generally cause headaches for the three of you who are not getting this via RSS.

Thanks for your patience.

Now back to CiL preparations. I’ll be on a Digital Branch Managers panel with David Lee King, Sarah Houghton-Jan, and Bobbi Newman. I’m also doing a Transliteracy Preso with Bobbi and Buffy Hamilton (no relation, but she is cooler than me). Also on tap will be a something on virtualization at ALA annual for LITA-HoLT.