October 24, 2014

Ebooks and the Demise of ILL | Peer to Peer Review

Bivens Tatum 2013 Ebooks and the Demise of ILL | Peer to Peer ReviewToday I want to talk about one of the greatest services academic libraries offer to scholars, one that is absolutely essential for any sort of advanced scholarship, and one that is facing the biggest obstacle of its 140-or-so-year-old existence. I’m talking about interlibrary loan (ILL) and the threat it faces from ebooks.

In the very first issue of Library Journal in 1876, Samuel Swett Green, the director of the Free Public Library in Worcester, MA, made an innovative proposal for American libraries. “It would add greatly to the usefulness of our reference libraries if an agreement should be made to lend books to each other for short periods of time.” Green was concerned with public libraries, and public libraries do participate in ILL arrangements. But I think it’s fair to say that, over the past few decades, academic libraries have come close to perfecting ILL, to the point where almost anyone affiliated with an academic library can secure a copy of almost anything that’s been published and made available in even just a handful of libraries.

Ebooks, and the digital rights that make what should be a great advancement into a tedious exercise, have the potential to destroy ILL for books. Librarians are certainly aware of this, and 66 library directors in the Oberlin Group, a consortium of liberal arts colleges, have signed a letter suggesting “that libraries and presses work together to make material available to all who need it—to use digital technology cooperatively to promote rather than constrain the dissemination of scholarship.” They make what they hope is a good faith proposition that benefits both libraries and publishers: “We affirm libraries’ obligation to buy books central to their institution’s curriculum and research. And we oppose piracy and illegal file sharing in all forms. We expect in return that publishers work with us to realize our shared mission: making good scholarly literature available to everybody who needs it.”

Surprisingly enough, the news is reaching the general public as well. Spiegel Online International just published a call for copyright change that would allow the digital lending of ebooks between libraries. That article shows how we’ve gone backward since the advent of ebooks. A 19th-century scholar would have had to travel to a library to access a book. A 20th-century scholar could acquire the book through ILL and not have to travel. But a 21st-century scholar might well have to travel to access a book from a different library if that book was available only as an ebook. A German librarian points out what he calls “digital absurdities” even for borrowing an article: “If, for example, [a scholar] wants to read an essay from an American library via interlibrary loan, ‘they will print it out on paper and send it over by fax—and I will then scan it into our computers here.’ Sending it as an email attachment is forbidden.”

How realistic is it to expect any change in copyright, at least in the United States? Even if we had a functioning Congress, the history of copyright legislation over the past 20 years suggests that the interests of corporate copyright holders trump everything else, in perpetuity. Despite the Constitution’s claim that  “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” of authors and inventors is secured “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” current copyright and patent law actively discourage the progress of science and the useful arts. Why innovate when you can be a patent troll? Why promote the progress of science when you can lobby Congress with lots of money to have your cartoon mouse protected?

As for working with publishers to effect change, that’s a likely possibility only if libraries have something to bargain with, and the only thing libraries have to bargain with is the ebook contracts. The “digital absurdities” involved with lending digital articles through ILL don’t point to much promise with ebooks, but unlike electronic journals, ebooks aren’t yet the only book format in academic libraries. It’s still possible to negotiate good contracts, but libraries have to be willing to forgo them if the terms aren’t sufficiently friendly to ILL. That ebook sales to academic libraries continue to increase without ILL-friendly conditions doesn’t bode well for the future.

The somewhat good news is that some libraries and publishers are making small steps in this direction. For example, a couple of months ago, Springer and the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) announced a new pilot for the consortial lending of ebooks through a tool called Occam’s Reader. With Occam’s Reader, 33 libraries will be able to “lend” Springer ebooks to one another, and the goal is to broaden the use of Occam’s Reader until it becomes a widespread platform for ebook ILL. (The demo at the site seems easy enough to use, although I found the print of the sample article too blurry to read.) It’s not the broad system of ILL we have now, but it’s a start.

Libraries that progress toward an all-ebook future without solving these problems risk destroying the ILL arrangements that benefit all of our users. Those that do so but continue to rely upon ILL for print books also become free-riders on a system that can probably only tolerate so many. I’ve seen it argued that librarians are responsible for purchasing resources for their own users, and they can’t be concerned with the users at other institutions. That’s a shortsighted view that ignores that schemes of cooperation like ILL are necessary for everyone and that contributing to its demise will harm everyone’s users, including your own.

This is a prime example of a problem we still have time to solve if we constantly keep in mind, as GWLA and the Oberlin Group have, that we’re all in this together.

This article was featured in Library Journal's Academic Newswire enewsletter. Subscribe today to have more articles like this delivered to your inbox for free.

Wayne Bivens-Tatum About Wayne Bivens-Tatum

Wayne Bivens-Tatum (rbivens@princeton.edu) is the Philosophy and Religion Librarian at Princeton University and an adjunct instructor at the University of Illinois Graduate School of Library and Information Science. He blogs at Academic Librarian.

Share

Comments

  1. Regarding the “digital absurdities” quote above, that German librarian is likely referring to German copyright law. Thus, what he’s saying about not being able to email an article as an attachment would be specifically relevant to him, but not necessarily to Americans in the U.S. Someone who knows more about ILL should feel free to leave a comment correcting me.

  2. It would have been a better example if I were just talking about the ways that copyright laws can restrict technological advances, rather than in an article discussing American ILL.

  3. Kathleen Folger says:

    In the early days of electronic journals, the licenses often did require libraries to print out a copy of the article when fulfilling an ILL request. Publishers for the most part have moved away from that requirement.

    ILL from an American library to a German one is actually more at risk than described in the article. A number of (mainly STM) publishers have been trying to stop international ILL, inserting language into licenses which restrict ILL only to libraries within the same country as the licensee.

  4. Barbara Fister says:

    The statements by Macalester College and directors of the Oberlin Group of liberal arts college libraries are an attempt to state what we need. (See http://www.oberlingroup.org/node/14801.) The faculty survey for the Lever Initiative found faculty pretty satisfied with their library’s ability to get them the books they need – but in open comments, interlibrary loan was mentioned again and again.

    This need to share books is particularly acute in small colleges with faculty doing significant amounts of research. But to an extent we caused this by signing journal/database licenses. Their cost eroded our book purchases while we perfected ILL – our ability to handle higher rents came out of the book budget, which we thought was fine so long as some other library bought the books we needed. The serials crisis was more about books than serials. See Walt Crawford’s thorough analysis of IPEDS data, The Big Deal and the Damage Done, which you wrote about previously – http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/05/opinion/peer-to-peer-review/the-big-deals-damage-peer-to-peer-review/

    • Barbara, my library is fortunate enough to still have a strong book budget, and it’s probably one of the few dozen libraries of last resort in the country, but we still borrow a lot of books through ILL. It’s just not possible for any library to collect everything, which is why I’ve long emphasized that we should think of academic libraries as a system of cooperation and not just free standing entities. But yes, it’s especially important at smaller libraries.

      12 years ago, right after I started this job, I gave a presentation to a group of faculty members arguing that rising STEM journal prices were hurting the job and tenure chances of humanities PhDs, the connection being that they caused libraries to buy fewer books, which caused publishers to publish fewer, which made it harder to publish that first book for tenure, etc. That was before the Big Deals, which Walt showed haven’t improved things at all for books. Until things improve, I’m reluctant to buy ebooks for the library in my areas.

  5. I don’t think changes in copyright law (at least in the US) will effect the interlibrary loan of ebooks. By law we can do that now. What prevents this type of sharing are restrictive licenses which we sign, that in effect, cede our right of first sale and fair use privileges via contract in order to gain access to electronic book collections. It is a fine distinction perhaps, but practice – not law – needs to change in this area for legitimate resource sharing to prosper.

  6. Steven Sowards says:

    Today’s struggle against powerful for-profit interests (in this case the STM lobby) is not the first time that librarians have had to face off against commercial cartels in order to achieve a working ILL system. Until 1913, low-cost parcel post delivery by the US Post Office was blocked by lobbying by the railroad express cartel (Wells Fargo, American Express and three other firms) which charged so much for package delivery, that ILL of books was cost-prohibitive. From Library Journal of March 1910 (35/3: 101-102): “Anything in the nature of a parcels post is fiercely opposed by the express companies and by other allies of the railroad interests … Librarians and other friends of a parcels post should be as active in favor of it as these opponents are against it, and whenever the subject is up in Congress the chairman of the Post Committee should hear from librarians all over the country.” We need to remember that we have had to fight on this ground before, and that we won the last time.

    • Wow, thanks for the history lesson. I didn’t know about this at all. Libraries have been fighting to get books to people for a long time.

  7. Peter Bae says:

    Wayne, I really appreciate you for the posting on this issue. It is something we need to take care of it before it becomes too late. I cannot agree more on what you said and below is a presentation I made last year, regarding e-book and ILL issue. I wish to share it with others.

    http://ilds2013.calis.edu.cn/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ILDS-20131017PM4-Seangill-Peter-Bae-Powerpoint.pdf

    In regarding to the International ILL… the U.S. libraries send articles electronically to German libraries but as Kathleen said there are attempts to block this international ILL activities. Yet, ILL activity is something like scratching each other’s back. We help them and they help us. It is not a one direction service.

    The International ILL activity is more important now because due to the internet and search engines, our patrons can find the citations of research materials published overseas and they want to read it. But in many cases, there is no owning libraries in the U.S. so we need to help from the libraries overseas. If we cannot provide them the materials they need, then it will not be easy for us to get items we need.

    No library can buy everything their patron need and at a certain point, we need to share our resources. Whether it is a print book or E-book or whatever new digital media we will see in the future, we should be able to share them.

  8. Library_Anthony says:

    Surely the focus needs to be on a temporary membership rather than a temporary loan of a physical item. Libraries could offer short term memberships for people to access digital items.

  9. David Banush says:

    I only just saw this and am glad that you wrote about this increasingly difficult issue. Library resource sharing has been a critical service in meeting user needs. As we look to coordinate collection development and management within resource sharing arrangements–and I am thinking foremost about Borrow Direct here–the ways in which e-books make those arrangements difficult or impossible threaten to compromise service to everyone. Yes, we can continue to buy print items to avoid these complications–for now. But an e-book only distribution model, coupled with locked-down content, is a distinct, and distinctly depressing, scenario. Wouldn’t it bitterly ironic that as monographs become technically shareable in new and better ways, the distributors of that content would force libraries to stop sharing it altogether?

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind

*