As part of the commons, libraries occupy a shrinking space in the contemporary world. Co-existing with the ever-increasing property rights of individuals and corporations, the commons represents ownership by a community. Interestingly, before colonialism, “commons were the rule rather than the exception across much of the planet.”[i]Colonialism, however, facilitated the Lockean (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro) view that a man’s labour could turn natural resources into property, facilitating the exploitation of the natural world and indigenous peoples. While property then became increasingly “enclosed” – i.e. private – libraries evolved from largely elite and private collections to “public” spaces that broadly served the educational and literacy needs of communities. Although a growing body of scholarship complicates this history, revealing libraries to be colonial institutions that were intended to facilitate cultural assimilation,[ii] libraries continue to be viewed as communally held spaces that collect materials (digital and physical) to share.

This is not an easy space to occupy. Despite operating as an aspect of the commons, libraries are part of a world that engages in free markets, having to acquire resources, engage in labour practices, and serve patrons within a capitalist framework. Söderholm and Nolin describe the modern library as “a place built around a collection and a collection built around a place”[iii]where members of communities engage in “everyday consumption strategies”[iv] by borrowing materials that support/satisfy their needs. These materials are acquired through processes that are directly informed by belief in private property, including intellectual property. Publishing houses negotiate the domain between creators and distribution of their creations. Libraries have become extremely dependent on their relationships with these corporations in paying for the “right” to share the materials that publishers “produce.”[v]

Manley and Holly reveal the surprisingly long technological evolution of ebooks that began as early as 1945.[vi] Similar to the early days of the Internet and search engines, library professionals missed the opportunity to fully participate in the development of ebooks and their distribution, enabling proprietary systems to dominate. The problem that has emerged is one of control over content. Libraries are beholden to private corporations for access to resources on subscription models (i.e. “renting”), rather than owning. In addition to the reduced (or total lack of) control over package configurations, privacy protections, and user experience, libraries are being priced out of options. This has been a long-standing issue for academic libraries and the always-increasing and exorbitant costs of subscriptions to journals but it is now spilling into the sector of mainstream ebooks accessed by public libraries.

While print began its early transition to digital during the 20th century, the library profession had an opportunity to insert its expertise and lead in the print-to-digital evolution. Despite the massive opportunities for paradigm shifts in how information could be shared and developed, the field deferred to tech companies and publishers. This resulted in missed opportunities for establishing systems that default toprotecting user privacy, allow for collaborative sharing (e.g. open source), and centre on community-defined (rather than consumer-defined) end-user experience. Reacting to change rather than demanding a role in the development of ebooks, the library profession allowed the publishing industry to simply draw on its traditional structures and corporate interests to shape ebooks, pushing (and not meeting much resistance) library purchasing/ownership models to leasing models. Looking at the long-standing battles held in academic libraries around exploitative subscription services, it is hardly surprising to see publishers making a similar play to public libraries. Despite the decreasing costs faced by publishers for print materials (i.e. reduction of physical materials and their handling), publishers are changing the conditions of ebook access to libraries by both increasing costs and limiting access through embargo periods for new releases.[vii] Interestingly, however, there is evidence that publishers could be shooting themselves in the foot. A report from BookNet Canada, a non-profit organization that supports the book trade industry in Canada, indicates that people who use the library also buy books. This calls into question publisher claims that borrowing ebooks from libraries is “too easy” and is somehow harmful to them.[viii][ix] Creators do not seem to be benefitting either. In fact, the Author’s Guild argues that publishers are doing “less than ever for their authors.”[x]

In the thick of all of this, Canadian libraries find themselves suddenly facing changes that grossly undermine their ability to provide access to materials. Further, libraries have built up community expectations for ebooks and other digital subscription services, promoting and allocating more and more of their library collection budgets to such materials. This highlights the incredible tension in libraries serving communities as partof the commons while also having to function as business organizations that interact with external corporate entities.

The emerging situation with publishers and ebooks also illustrates how the lack of coordinated policies around information access has prevented the profession from acting more strategically, proactively, and politically. Sharon Farb’s examination of the changing focus and role of academic libraries and archives in the digital world highlights the significant lack of overarching information policies in the field. She suggests that such policies may better address the challenges of restricting digital content licenses and the need for reliable, ongoing preservation practices for digital content.[xi] This necessitates collective action and educating our communities on the importance of protecting a part of the commons that, while far from perfect, strives to protect access to a range of materials that document our histories, our stories, and our cultures more broadly. This is a resistive effort in a world that assigns value to creative “products” that frequently erases historical contexts that make such creations possible, denying “the claims of everyone who came before you.”[xii] Libraries offer an important site for the preservation of those claims and they might be able to offer something different in the face of a digital world that is steadily becoming enclosed, privatized, and full of questionable truths.[xiii]

---

References

[i]Derek Wall. (2014). The Commons in History: Culture, Conflict, and Ecology.Cambridge: MIT Press.

[ii] See nina de jesus’ article “Locating the Library in Institutional Oppression” for an introduction to the topic that complicates the historical role of libraries. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/locating-the-library-in-institutional-oppression/

[iii] Söderholm,J., & Nolin, J. (2015). Collections Redux: The Public Library as a Place ofCommunity Borrowing. Library Quarterly, 85(3), 244–260. https://doi-org.proxy.ufv.ca:2443/10.1086/681608,p. 257.

[iv] Söderholm& Nolin, p. 256.

[v] Itis easy to assume that the creator-corporate publisher model is inevitable inthe production of works but there are models that disrupt this notion. For example, academic libraries and researchers are wrestling with open access models, the Digital Public Libraries of America project (https://pro.dp.la/ebooks) provides access through partnerships like the Indie Author Project eBook Collection, and various forms of self publishing.

[vi] Manley,L. & Holley, R.P. (2012). History of the Ebook: The Changing Face of Books,Technical Services Quarterly, 29:4, 292-311, DOI: 10.1080/07317131.2012.705731

[vii]For specific details on this issue, consider looking at the Canadian Urban Libraries Council’s statement on digital loans for public libraries at http://www.culc.ca/cms_lib/CULC-CBUC%20Statement%20on%20Digital%20Loans.pdf

[viii]Booknet Canada. (2019). Borrow, Buy, Read: Library Use and Book Buying inCanada. https://www.booknetcanada.ca/borrow-buy-read?utm_source=BookNet+Canada+Media+List&utm_campaign=3d22e99613-press_librarystudy_28052019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_71c57dac98-3d22e99613-710667029

[ix] Interviewwith Rina Hadziev. (June 27, 2019) “Changes to library lending.” Live fromStudio 5 on AMI-audio. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/live-from-studio-5-on-ami-audio/id1235751531?mt=2

[x]Author’s Guild. (2015). The Authors Guild Fair Contract Initiative: A FreshLook at the “Standard” Contract. https://www.authorsguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Fair-Contract-Initiative_mission_Final_6.pdf

[xi] Farb,S. (2006). Libraries, licensing and the challenge of stewardship. First Monday,11(7). doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i7.1364

[xii] Cory Doctorow. (March 4, 2019). “TerraNullius.” Locus. https://locusmag.com/2019/03/cory-doctorow-terra-nullius/

[xiii] I acknowledge that libraries are not innocent or neutral spaces, serving as colonial sites of cultural reproduction. They are, however, what we have and, perhaps, they can evolve to become something far better.