Since I have been giving the traditionalists (or industry) version of the open content war for the past few months, it is only fair that I present the other side.  Especially, since I am still, more or less, on that side of the argument.  This podcast from Surprisingly Free with Joshua Gans is excellent, and presents one of the best cases for a new model.

What is ironic is that libraries tend to be on his side without realizing that they are one of the old institutions who rely on scarcity to create value.  Librarians need to realize that while we have always supported free association of information and open information sharing, it was in an economy where scarcity created value for us as content sources.  Scarcity no longer exists in digital economics, meaning that everything we have always done will have little value in an information economy without scarcity.  Our entire model, budgets, management systems- everything is a reflection of the old economy where scarcity made our model valuable.  But without scarcity it will not be.  What will libraries offer in this new economy?

Since I first started following econtent, I have always wondered why the owners allow middle men into the market.  After my first digital purchase through iTunes and then later through Amazon, it occurred to me that there was no reason for any of the labels or studios to work through an intermediary.  Cutting out the middle man would mean more money and control.

Hollywood has made some moves in this direction- it appears they are biding their time and building the best possible infrastructure before dropping the hammer on everyone.  But HBO's hint that they may allow subscriptions is another sign of the coming battle.

Do not be deceived.  Hollywood  dreams of a digital monopoly where they control everything.  The recent SCOTUS decision in favor of Supap Kirtsaeng is just a minor annoyance for an industry that has Congress in its pocket.  Powerful well funded forces are doing everything they can to create a new monopoly.  Think of them as Digital Robber Barons.

The motivation is pretty simple.  First, companies would always prefer to streamline and enhance profits.  Nothing new there, but what is unique about the digital world is that they have some strong moral and legal arguments behind them.  Piracy is a significant problem, stealing digital content and illegal sharing cur into revenue and undermine both the law and the market.  The best workable solution is control from beginning to end. This is why iTunes was so difficult to work with in its early days-  Apple knew that they had to make piracy extremely difficult.  So Hollywood and the rest of the producers have a powerful argument moving forward with content control and ownership.  This is why all digital content is licensed and not "owned" in any traditional sense.

Libraries are one of the only organizations that can step in with a less draconian and monopolistic answer.  If we had the technical infrastructure we could create an alternative virtual environment where content could be mediated between producers and consumers.  The problem is we are not moving in that direction with enough focus and energy.  Instead, we are still thinking like ideologues rather than lawyer's and business persons.  We make idealistic arguments but not financial or legal ones. 

If we don't start adjusting soon, I think the door will close, as we are starting to see with HBOs suggestion that they may move directly to the consumer.  There is no room for libraries in such a mode

Great news as the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Supap Kirtsaeng.  I wont say much other than to link out to a number of well reasoned articles.  And I want to caution everyone not to read too much into this.  It means we won a battle, but even the meaning of the victory is nebulous.  Be careful what librarians and nonlegal analysts argue about this.

The only thing I will comment on that no one else is is the unique political nature of the Justices.  The 3 dissenters were Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia.  1 liberal, 1 conservative, and the moderate.  Which means that the other six were a mix of liberals and conservatives.  Rather than reading this as a hopeful sign of bipartisanship, I would suggest it should be understood as a sign of the chaotic nature of property rights in the digital age.  The broader implications are that an in family fight is brewing between two liberal heavy hitters: the tech industry and Hollywood.

To get the best interpretations start with Bill Rosenblatt.
After him I would suggest Kevin Smith.
And for the heavy hitter Kenneth Crews.

I was talking with one of the sharper minds in the profession this morning and we both commented about how we are experiencing what I might call "ebook fatigue".  Now that has to be taken in context.  We are both deeply involved in some of the more innovative and cutting edge ebook initiatives out there, but his comments were a reference to others in the profession who may not be as deeply involved as we are.

The question is why are librarians fatigued?  Fatigue can come from a number of different places.  For libraries I think it is directly related to the amount of energy and time we spend on ebooks vs the amount of positive change we have seen in the market.  We have expended massive amounts of energy and time, but seen almost no real change; nothing that solves the problem permanently yet or gives us any reason to really think libraries might get there.

Licensing is still the dominant model.  This is an unsustainable model for us once econtent hits critical mass.  Which is why we are starting to experience ebook fatigue.

At this point in market evolutions there is a tendency for the weaker party to start giving in and tacitly accepting the status quo being imposed by the stronger party.  Think of Microsoft's new OS and tablet.  It was an unspoken admission that Apple has won the battle.  We see this also in the music industry where so many artists are deeply unhappy with the current model, but roll over every time the latest streaming service offers them pennies for their rights.  Libraries cannot let this happen.  As Bill Rosenblatt argues below, if libraries accept this situation we will be eliminated from the commercial content market.  While I think the future of libraries must center on things other than commercial content, it is still important and valuable for many of our patrons and for us.  We cannot expect Maker Spaces and other possible innovations to fill the vacuum that would be left in our services if we are eliminated as a source of commercial content for our patrons.  In essence, we must continue fighting for an afforable and equitable solution.  We need to keep advocating for some kind of Digital First Sale, as the alternatives are not acceptable.  If you are fatigued, don't give up.

That's from someone who actually supports us!  The quote is from a Publisher's Weekly article on Bill Rosenblatt's speech at the O'Reilly Tools of Change conference.  Rosenblatt understands libraries and supports us, but a lack of Digital First Sale really threatens our existence in an econtent economy.  The problem being that our old legal arrangements do not apply, thus leaving us out in the cold.  His use of the term "eliminated" is intended to convey the seriousness of libraries' current situation in regards to the legal arrangements for econtent.  The Publisher's weekly article describes a "dismal vision of the future of libraries".  Ironically, there were probably almost no librarians in the audience... Slides below:

This post is for Jimmy at Marmot.   It has nothing to do with libraries, but I love skateboarding, and everyone should watch this because Tommy is blind.  I heard about Tommy a few years back and even saw some grainy footage, but somebody finally realized just how truly amazing and inspirational he is. It is difficult to communicate or even grasp how unbelievable he is.  I have been skateboarding for over 25 years, and have no idea how he does what he does.  I hope you are inspired and touched by this amazing young man.

Amazon has rather quietly patented "an electronic marketplace for used digital objects".  It is rather difficult to understate the importance of such a concept.  First Sale doesn't apply to digital content.  Amazon knows that, so they have smartly focused on patenting the marketplace tool, because they know the battle to sell used digital goods will be huge and very public.  All the major players will get involved, as this is one of the thorniest issues out there.

But for libraries, Amazon's willingness to get in the game represents a huge opportunity.  If Amazon takes this fight on, the most logical approach would be to advocate for some form of Digital First Sale, which means we could potentially have the leverage we need to "buy" ebooks at a market value rather than the ridiculous licenses eating up our budgets.

But of course, we should learn from Amazon.  They are probably patenting this ahead of time and will build the software before taking on the fight, because they need proof of concept.  They need to demonstrate how they will not hurt the market or increase piracy- something that only Douglas County and the handful of libraries who have followed their example have done.  Libraries all over need to realize the importance of Amazon's approach. They are patenting the marketplace and building the ecosystem ahead of time, because they know they can't get what they want without it.  Our approach has been exactly the opposite.  We ofter abstract arguments and ideas, but have nothing on the table.  

Finally, don't think this makes Amazon one of the good guys.  Please recognize that this is another salvo in the battle for control of the digital economy.  There is no way of knowing if it will actually help us, as Amazon's needs simply happen to meet some of ours at this point.  We need better solutions and leadership on this issue or we will again be left further out to pasture and even less relevant than before.  

How often do you get to post a blog title like that?!

I just finished playing through Halo 4 on legendary settings, and that got me back to a line of thought I had late last year after finishing Greg Baer's second book in his Halo Forerunner series.

But first, some background information.  Halo is a series of video games that essentially made Microsoft's xbox game console the juggernaut it is.  It liberally borrowed from Larry Niven's famous ringworld series of novels that proposed the concept of a planet built as a ring around a central sun.  The series is famous in science fiction both for its story and the serious attempts to scientifically explain how such a world could actually exist.

Halo mainly borrowed the concept, and turned these "Halo" planets into giant weapons intended as a last resort against an all consuming threat simply known as "the Flood".  The Halo story was fairly thin even though a series of pulp novels and graphic novels had fleshed out some of the story.  But Microsoft pulled a coup when they were able to get acclaimed science fiction writer Greg Baer to agree to a trilogy of Halo novels.  Baer is one of the most respected and serious writers of science fiction out there, and I only picked up the series because I knew he would give me a real story with real characters and not pulp entertainment.

What I have been fascinated by is his portrayal of "The Librarian".  The Librarian is one of the most critical and powerful of all Forerunners.  She is also female (which shows that even Baer can't quite leave his old prejudices aside...).  The Forerunners are the most powerful and advanced species in the Halo universe. They are also the oldest.  What is fascinating is that Baer takes the archetype of a Librarian and uses it as one of his most critical characters.  Granted, he started the series after the third Halo game had already introduced the Librarian in a brief way, but he could have easily adjusted his story to make her a minor character.  Instead, she becomes one of the central players in the action and drama of the story.  The picture above is taken from her one interaction with the game's main protagonist, Master Chief.  Essentially, the Librarian is the main heroine and champion of life, peace, and all that is good.  What I find most fascinating is that she does this by cataloguing and preserving all sentient life.  Rather than simply archiving information she saves and stores entire species  with the hope that they can all return home after the Flood apocalpyse is finally over.  She is developed as an all powerful benevolent god intent on helping lesser species survive the capriciousness and vicousness of her own species.  She is often at odds with the other Forerunners and uses her exalted status to bend the rules and pursue her one goal of preserving all life in the universe.  

What is interesting is that this is a recurring concept in the tech world.  Many librarians would think that techies see little value in libraries and librarians, but that is not the case.  Many like Baer and the designers of the Halo series actually do recognize our value, they just don't see value in our 20th century services.  Instead they see Librarians cataloguing, recording and preserving humanity itself.  Not too shabby.

Ironically, we have always been doing this at some level our other, we simply need to find ways to adapt to the new possibilities and tools the tech commuity is giving us.  Out with the old, in with the older, so to speak.  Because after all, that is really what libraries were all about before that brief interludes of book circulation that came to dominate our profession this past two hundred years.  Books were simply containers, albeit beautiful ones that I personally prefer, but just containers for the human story.  What I find most fascinating is that the tech world still envisions a place for us in the new ecosystem.  We just have to see that too.

One of the most troublesome issues with online learning is that it increases the risk of losing your audience significantly.  What is worse is that almost all educational institutions tend to design their online learning with the express purpose of alienating their audience.  If you have looked at any of the online tutorials out there on Information Literacy you will know what I mean.  Companies like Credo Reference charge an arm and a leg to create tutorials that we know our students won't use.

This is because the material is being built with almost zero pedagogical considerations.  There is no consideration of the user or their environment, their learning, their attention span- nothing.  Instead our online tutorials have the look and feel of that dreaded monotone professor from our undergrad days who everyone knew would rather be anywhere than lecturing a bunch of students on 16th century Dutch mercantilism.  If you think back to your undergraduate days and think about those professors who were popular and beloved you will notice that they were all engaging and related the material to their students.  After all, the content is essentially the same, so why is one teacher or speaker so much more engaging?  Because they relate it to their audience on the audience's terms.  Facts are contextualized.  

Which is what I have done in this tutorial on the library of congress classification system.  Moreover, I embedded the learning into a storyline that the vast majority of students can relate to.  Please click the link, go to the tutorial titled "Finding Books" and play through it to see what I mean.  You will notice that I never use the words "test" or "quiz".  Instead I embed the learning in a natural story that students have experienced.  Plus, it is a "game", meaning the student controls the flow of the story and what happens to a certain extent.  I have contextualized the learning using real world scenarios that the target demographic will recognize as authentic and engaging.

I am so confident in the superiority of this type of online tutorial that I am starting a company to undercut the costly  and ineffective products marketed by all the big companies.  Our tutorials will be a series of stories with Information Literacy problems that the player has to solve.  All the stories will be anchored in the real world experiences of millenial learners, and will have the same graphical interface students have become so accustomed to.  We hope to have the first three tutorials developed by spring of next year.  Pricing will be simple and cheap.  If you are interested please contact me through my contact page and I will let you know as development moves forward.

Publisher's Weekly has a nice article on the deal my friend Jamie Larue finalized with Smashwords for 10,000 books at an average price of $4 per title.  I love the language of the article, because it perfectly reflects the language Jamie and I used since we first met and I described to him what was then purely a business/legal and technical model for ebook ownership distribution.  Jamie has made that a reality, and it is very comforting to know that the legal language and arrangement I had originally envisioned remains.  It is another sign of the viability of the model Jamie and I developed.