Publisher Wiley Lets Libraries Offer eTextbooks Again… But Only For Nine Months
from the publisher-greed dept
Last week, we wrote about how publisher Wiley had removed 1,379 textbook titles from the list of books that academic libraries could lend out, thereby forcing students to have to buy the textbooks, rather than take them out of the library. As we noted, this was an example of how damaging copyright has been on the free flow of information. In the non-digital world, the libraries could just buy copies of the book to lend out, but thanks to publishers insisting that there is not a first sale right for ebooks, it allows them to block any sale they don’t want.
Of course, after lots of people got mad about this removal, Wiley relented… but only for a little while. The statement is… kinda weak:
In June 2020, Wiley requested our library aggregator partner ProQuest transition approximately 1,380 ebooks out of its Academic Complete online digital library as part of a regular review of collections. In working with ProQuest, this change was delayed to August 2022 for contractual reasons and to provide time for customers to make any necessary adjustments. Nevertheless, many customers were caught off guard.
After reviewing the decision against the current environment and listening to our customers, we are returning these ebooks to the ProQuest Academic Complete collection so libraries that subscribe to the service can access them again.
We are working to restore access to the ebooks as soon as possible. The materials will remain in the collection through June 2023 to ensure access through the remainder of the academic year.
Basically: “okay, okay, we’ll let you have the books for this academic year, but after that we’re really done.”
Wiley is almost certainly hoping that by next year everyone has forgotten. The folks campaigning against this are already trying to make sure that no one forgets.
Come June 2023 we will still lose access to these Wiley titles, with no way to obtain them except via even more expensive e-textbook subscription models. This is an unsustainable model for libraries to pursue, underming the core purpose of libraries in making access to our collections available to all who need them, not ringfencing resources for those we can afford to pay for.
It is noteable that Wiley’s press release includes the statement – “Wiley is committed to providing students with affordable e-books through initiatives such as our inclusive access and course materials affordability programs”. Committed to providing students, not libraries. In the midst of a cost of living crisis, with students already paying high tuition fees, it is unacceptable that publishers like Wiley are increasingly shunning sales to libraries in favour of the more profitable student market.
We need to maintain pressure on all publishers, including Wiley, to commit to making all digital texts available to libraries on reasonable terms. The fight does not end here!
Of course, the longer term fix is to return first sale rights to digital goods, and to support things like the Internet Archive as it is fighting back against publishers trying to kill off the right to lend ebooks from libraries. Congress could step in and make it clear that first sale applies to digital files, and that things like controlled digital lending are clearly legal, but when has Congress done anything good for the rights of the public around copyright?
Comments on “Publisher Wiley Lets Libraries Offer eTextbooks Again… But Only For Nine Months”
This is not the only money gram from academic publisher.
Ah yes, the standard library policy of “These titles ware popular, therefore we removed them from circulation right at the moment of most urgent demand.”
Very normal and defensible stuff.
“…But Only For Nine Months ”
That’s a pregnant idea.
Re:
If you spoke Spanish, you’d be embarrassed by now.
Congress being pro-public vis-à-vis copyright
I would argue the 2019 Music Modernization Act. When it was drafted, it was horrible and anti-public, but with Ron Wyden’s help, it became a lot better, including:
1. the streaming service defraying the royalties to songwriters for covers and songs with more than one songwriter (this is how I get royalties from BMI for Mega Ran’s “O.P.” whenever it gets streamed on Spotify and other streaming services)
2. how recordings with “no commercial value” can be kept in archives like the internet archive
3. the drastically reduces time it takes for recordings to go into the public domain. It’s still extremely long, but way less than the RIAA originally wanted, which is everything until 2067. What we got was new recordings entering the public domain in 2022.
I would definitely consider those three aspects a win for the public.
Re:
Such progress is to be lauded, but it’s still somewhat depressing that these are to be considered wins (at least the last 2 points). IIRC, the stuff that entered the public domain in 2022 was recorded before 1923. When that music was published, the agreed deal with the public was 28 years (with a possible extension to 56 years).
So, it’s a “win” that the law “only” potentially robbed an additional 72 years of published recordings from the public domain in comparison with the law when it was recorded instead of the proposed 137 years. Still a very sad state of affairs, even though it could always be worse if someone else kowtows to the people pushing for effectively infinite copyright.
Re: Re:
That is indeed a fair outlook. I too wish for shorter copyright terms (like you said, two 28-year terms max) as well as an “opt-in” arrangement which would make the public domain the norm rather than the exception (as per the Berne Convention). We’ve lost so much to the copyright maximalists that I’ll take whatever wins I can get for the public.
That is not really a win. That is migrating the loss to the public. The act is a loss overall. The “good” Congress did for the public which mean everyone not just creators and copyright landlords, the first aspect does not count. It just benefits creators.
Ron Wyden did good but he is not Congress. Name one legislation that Congress passed that is good overall for the rights of the public when Copyright is concerned.
Overall, the Congress did social injustice to the public as usual with this act. Public Domain got expanded a little with second and third aspect you mention. Bit of speech was liberated. Meh. Nothing for the public to be excited about. This is like tossing a bone to the public. If the public was victorious, it was a pyrrhic victory.
What do you mean by “of course”?? To me, the better long-term fix is transitioning Copyright to a superior post-Copyright system. That is transitioning to a new paradigm that stop imagining the rights of copyright holders to restrict copying to the public aka Copyright as actual property. The Copying Prohibition needs to be ended as it is backward, unenlightened thinking like the Alcohol Prohibition of 1920s or the War on Drugs. It needs to be lifted in stages.
Better fix is stopping imagining the right to have a copy like “digital good” as something to be brought or sold. This is treating it as property which is a bad idea. Forget about the doctrines of the Copyright Cult like first sale rights for “digital goods”.
“Digital goods” need to be divorced from physical property. The analogy does not work for a modern free digital society. Copyright which was envisioned in a physical world where information was tied to physical goods is obsolete when it comes to digital. The Constitutional founders never mean the Copyright Clause to be untied to physical goods. They lived in an entirely physical world. That why they did not see it as conflicting First Amendment. Congress shall not curtail free speech rights but it can curtail property. Censoring speech that come through digital means in name of Copyright should be prohibited by the First Amendment. Speech as “digital good” is not supported in the Constitution as the Constitution does not define it as actual property.
Information itself and ideas itself when it comes through digital means should not be property to be owned by individuals more than water and air which we breathe and drink. It should be held by the community. Anything that is not this paradigm is backward thinking. It should not be “private property”
It is past time to push to abolish digital Copyright. It is evil and contributing to decay of society. Culture production centered around greed and unequal access to culture that privileges the wealthier people is wrong. Digital culture needs to be made more accessible to the poor by digital libraries at least. It needs to be stopped being locked up behind paywalls for lengthy time.