Informationoverlord

“A good library will never be too neat, or too dusty, because somebody will always be in it, taking books off the shelves and staying up late reading them.” Lemony Snicket

I’ve writing so much about libraries recently that anyone coming across this blog might confuse me with a librarian. Oh, no, wait …

If nothing else Libraries do seem to be getting a bit of press and that can only be a good thing, right? Well, yes actually. Whilst they are only in the press again because our Libraries are facing their biggest challenge in many decades as a result of the economic situation the country finds itself in, this also proves a good opportunity for reiterating why they are an important part of our society ( ‘big’ or otherwise) and why it’s not just about books.

A couple of weeks ago new culture minister Ed ‘champion of libraries’ Vaizey set out where he see libraries playing a role in the ‘big society’, and an alliance of grass-roots library campaign groups joining together to launch a national Library Charter.

Let’s start with Mr Vaizey.

Like all good ministers he mainly talks a good talk. He declares that he wants to be a ‘champion’ for public libraries: “I am a genuine fan and I think others – in central and local government, and more members of the public, in fact – should recognise and exploit the potential of libraries.”

I think very few of us who have ever been involved in public libraries would disagree with this statement. This is the heart of the argument – not just highlighting the huge contribution libraries already contribute to our society but also exploring and exploiting the ‘potential’ of libraries to contribute even more. Indeed, Vaizey praises libraries successes “Almost 80% of 11-15 year olds visit a library and children’s borrowing continues to increase year on year. For many areas of the country there are tremendous success stories as library visits increase during the recession.” And yet cuts will mean these resources that are additionally relevant and helpful during economic downturns are going to be facing closure by councils across the country who’ll see them as an easy cost saving to meet their budget cut targets.

He continues: “I want libraries to be at the heart of the digital agenda, which is absolutely intrinsic to libraries’ information role.” It might have been an idea for the coalition government not to go back on funding recommendations from Labour’s Public Library Modernisation Review, in particular the promise to make an affirmative order , under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, to preventing libraries from charging for internet access. If you care about the digital agenda and the digital divide then surely guaranteeing free internet access to all library uses, and providing the only internet access to many of the poorer members of our society – young and old – should be central in this digital agenda ? And let’s not forget this is the government that are also committed to connecting the whole country to ’superfast broadband’. If you don’t have any computer to start with, this isn’t an issue.

Of course by not introducing the affirmative order this allows councils to either re-start charging or increase charging for internet access as a means of income generation to perhaps keep libraries open or to finance other services.

Vaizey is also keen on Co-location ideas. ” Co-location arrangements are bringing many libraries even closer to other public services, be it job centres, primary care trusts or cultural organisations.”

Actually, I don’t think libraries should necessarily fear this idea. Many already help to provide access to education, public health, and employment advice and resources so more official ties in some instances could be positive move. Of course people will also mention private co-location tie ups too, and the much trotted out ’starbucks’ idea. Again, I think it is narrow minded to just dismiss this out of hand. Whilst I don’t think every library needs (or wants) a coffee shop attached to it, in some instances I don’t see why it couldn’t work. I remember when I worked for Swansea Libraries 15 years ago, all the staff were quite keen on the idea of a coffee shop as part of the library building. It seems it is just a matter of who is running it that get’s some people’s backs up.

Similarly Vaizey points to the George and Dragon pub in North Yorkshire. “[It] is now delivering a library service and a pint to the community in Hudswell. That sounds like a good partnership to me.” Those living in Ireland will long be familiar with the concept of pubs and other shops effectively co-locating – most often pubs and grocers/convenience stores. In smaller communities it works well. Whilst it should not be a one size fits all approach, we should not turn our backs on new ways of delivering our services, just as long as the service and the purpose of the service is not sacrificed along the way.

Vaisey also says we need to ask tough questions, like “whether there is scope for savings in reducing the number of library authorities through voluntary alliances.” That’s tight the party who hates central government and centralisation wants to encourage a bit less de-centralisation for library authorities.

That said, Vaizey seems genuine enough, to me. But as we all know, talk is cheap. So it is all very well saying he’s going to be a champion for public libraries, but if he oversees the largest closure programme of public libraries across the country his words will be hollow.

[TV SHOW IDEA: Co-location, Co-location, Co-location : Viewers propose a local library and Channel 4 get Kirstie Allsopp and Phil Spencer to come in and offer use a choice of potential co-habitors? Please send my share of the syndication rights to …]

You were allowed to read and comment on Mr Vaizey’s speech at the DCMS site, until the 8th July ( A whole week after publication). Marvellous. Annoyingly if you just want to read the speech normally there didn’t seem to be a version of the speech you could just read in one doc/page. The ONLY way to read this speech seems to be via the format set up for commenting, at ‘writetoreply’ which I find annoying. (this link no longer seems to work for me either). Sadly, unlike on the TWFY site, the speech is not all on one page but broken up.

In fact, whilst we are on the topic, the DCMS seem to have removed the ministers ’speeches’ section from their site altogether which was always useful for, you know, reading the speeches of their Ministers.

Meanwhile, the same Day Ed was waxing lyrical, the Library campaign also launched their 12 point Charter. According to them “The essential value of public libraries needs to be reinforced at both local and national level and a focused effort must be made to see libraries fulfil their role and maintain their relevance for generations to come. ”

To achieve this?

1. Make the libraries local
2. Increase opening hours
3. Improve library collections
4. Improve the library environment
5. Embrace technology
6. Liberate the library staff
7. Collaborate and share best practice
8. Don’t waste money
9. Performance feedback
10. Engage individuals and communities
11. Don’t close libraries
12. Make and keep a promise

Go back 30 years or more and you really could have been looking at the same list. To be fair each of these ideas was fleshed out a bit, but I was still left slightly disappointed that this was the best we could come up with. Maybe the problem is just that we haven’t really made enough progress in the last 20-30 years in addressing these issues? In point 12 of the charter - Make and keep a promise - it calls on Public library users call upon councils to commit themselves to achieving the aims of this charter. This looks set to be tested, especially in relation to point 11. Don’t Close libraries.

Where I live in Lewisham, the council is set to vote on proposal this week that will see it target £830,000 of saving in the Library budget, most to be achieved by closing five libraries: Sydenham, Blackheath, Crofton Park, Grove Park and New Cross. For Blackheath and Grove Park this will seem like déjà vu as both were earmarked for closure along-side Manor House Library back in 1999 – when all survived. [It was a Labour controlled council in 1999 as it is now, only then we also had a Labour government]

According to the proposal “Service co-location, community management and asset transfer are all being considered as part of these proposals… This work is being undertaken jointly with Property Services. It should be noted that the existing lease on Blackheath Library runs until Jan 2013. We will be looking at an alternative use for the facility in the interim. ”

One thing is for sure, if Lewisham is looking at closing Libraries as part of their cost cutting so will London’s other 32 councils. If they all followed suit 33×5 . It would see 165 libraries facing closure, which based on figures from the MLA would mean that almost half of the capitals current 385 Libraries could potentially be facing the axe this year, if others followed Lewisham’s lead. Once closed, libraries rarely re-open.

Of course, in Blackheath, earlier this year the Blackheath Society – tasked with protecting the village - was hawking a plan to knock the library down to create at piazza in the ‘heath although their plans did include a new library in the redevelopment that would have seen more flats built, but parking space in the ‘heath decreased.

Crofton Park are looking to form a Friends and Users Group to try and fight their proposed closure.

Ian Clark, has written a very good piece over at the Guardian site explaining why Libraries are still needed in today’s society.

“I’ve got a vendetta to destroy the Net, to make everyone go to the library. I love the organic thing of pen and paper, ink on canvas. I love going down to the library, the feel and smell of books. ” Joseph Fiennes

What is clear is that, those of us in the library profession need to make ourselves heard more, as do those who are supposed to represent our interests – such as CILIP.

With this in mind Phil Bradley has come out (no, not in that way) and announced he will be standing for vice-president of CILIP in the upcoming autumn elections, which also includes elections to the council. I think Phil would be good for CILIP. He has an understanding of the various strands of the profession, the importance of education, an openness to trying new technology to see how it might help improve the work of librarians, and in delivering services to patrons – public and private, and most of all he has a belief that the profession needs a strong advocate, and one that is not hidden from sight.

Because of this, and the economic situation we find ourselves in, I think these council elections could be the most important ones we have had in many years. Hopefully a wide range of new people will put themselves forward for the council – people with a drive and a vision to re-unite CILIP and give it the renewed focus that many of us think it lacks – be they those who think it is obsessed only with public libraries, those who think it can’t see further north than Watford, those who wonder if it even remembers it’s meant to represent Information Scientists as well as librarians, those who question the relevance of Chartership, and those who think that it is always behind rather than ahead of the curve with new technology.

This is not to say there are not many fine people in CILIP andcurrently involved in its running but it is no longer good enough to have an organisation that is afraid to take public stands on things on principle without worrying that it might annoy some of its own members – for example in relation to proposed cuts and closures, where some of its members may also be the ones that have to implement any such changes.

I’m not going to run for council myself – as I don’t think I could give it the time or do it justice - but I will support any candidates that want to help turn CILIP into an organisation that I’d want to join again. If that’s you, you have my vote.

(On libraries) “What’s great about them is that anybody can go into them and find a book and borrow it free of charge and read it. They don’t have to steal it from a bookshop… You know when you’re young, you’re growing up, they’re almost sexually exciting places because books are powerhouses of knowledge, and therefore they’re kind of slightly dark and dangerous. You see books that kind of make you go ‘Oh!’” Stephen Fry Room 101 (2001)

Checking through my feeds and shared items this morning I came across an item on libraries shared by a friend that seemed to promise bad reporting and calls to close libraries down. Better still, it was from Fox News. I was suddenly smiling, pleased to see that over in America the same quality of investigation is available on the subject of the future and worth of libraries as we saw recently from KPMG. I read on.

Boing Boing had linked to a piece by Chicago Fox news affiliate on Libraries apparently ‘ proposing that Illinois shut down its library system’, indeed the piece on Boing Boing is titled: ‘Fox Advocates Shutting Down Public Libraries’ Fox News eh. Typical. However, then I follow the link to the story; read the text of the story which starts ‘ They eat up millions of your hard earned tax dollars. It’s money that could be used to keep your child’s school running. So with the internet and e-books, do we really need millions for libraries?’ and then watched the actual broadcast story (See below: which lasts almost 6 minutes)

You know what? Boing Boing and Cory Doctorow are totally misrepresenting the story. Misrepresenting Fox News. Seriously, can you sink lower than that? Nowhere in this news piece do Fox ,as a company, or their reporter Anna Davlantes advocate shutting down public libraries. Nice attention grabbing headline, but it is in fact, a LIE.

If you actually WATCH the piece, it sets out to debate the question of ‘do we still need public libraries’

It looks at the situation is Chicago, and asks the question of whether the $120 million a year that goes to the libraries would be better spent on education, the transport authority, the police etc. What they don’t say is, yes we should. In fact the balance of the whole piece is the opposite. Yes there are some vox pops of people saying they don’t use a library but there are also ones saying how important it is to them.

Indeed reporter Anna Davlantes states :”There are 799 illinois public libraries, and boy do we use them.”

They then speak to Andrea Telli from Chicago Public Libraries who says that they are ‘busy, busy, busy’ and that visits and circulation both on the rise.

Fox do send an undercover team to the city’s main library, the Harold Washington Library in the Loop, which they say boasts 5,000 visitors a day [actually if you are ever in Chicago, it is well worth a visit]. I’ll admit this is the one really really bad bit of journalism in the piece, where they tell us they were there for an hour and reckoned about 300 people came in and most of them were there to use the free internet access, not browse the bookshelves. It added nothing to the debate and should have been edited out of the piece.

There is also a studio discussion featuring Denise Zielinski (Dupage Library System) and Jim Tobin (National Taxpapyers United, Illinois). Tobin makes clear he wants to see cuts across all public spending not just on libraries – although he is a man who thinks the internet has ‘pretty much made libraries obsolete’ (and says he argued the same 30 years ago when paperbacks started being mass produced. No, really.)

And finally, the piece ends with some viewer comments all of which are pro-libraries.

But don’t take my word for it – watch it yourselves. Who’s being more honest, Fox or Boing Boing?

I should also say that there is some great pro-library comments on the written piece, although again I would say that I feel Ms Davlantes is unfairly criticised, and would question whether all those commenting actually watched the piece.

The DCMS has confirmed that spending commitments made by the last government following its Public Library Modernisation Review will not be kept. This means that the coalition will not pursue the £2 million (per annum) spending commitments set out in the Public Library Modernisation Review Policy statement published in March 2010.

What were these?

“These were free internet access in all libraries and to promote library membership as an entitlement from birth.”

Proposal 27: The Government expects that from April 2011 all library services will provide free internet access to users as part of their Library Offer to the public. Government will, under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, make an (affirmative) Order preventing libraries from charging for internet access. DCMS will ensure that there will be no net additional costs to local authorities in line with the Government’s new burdens procedures.

Proposal 8: We know children benefit in many ways from early access to books and reading29. The Government therefore expects that from April 2011 all library services offer library membership as an entitlement from birth. This might be achieved in a number of ways:
• Offering Library membership at the registration of a birth30
• Offering Library membership along with child benefits
• Offering library membership with Bookstart packs

Two thirds of libraries already provide library membership information with packs which are distributed to all children at 7- 9 months31. DCMS will ensure that there will be no net additional costs to local authorities in line with the Government’s new burdens procedures.

“It also included extending the Public Lending Right to non-print format books, estimated at £300,000 – this has been suspended and will be considered as part of spending review in the Autumn.”

Proposal 34: Government expects e-books to be loaned for free. Government will under section 8(2)(b) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, make an (affirmative) Order preventing libraries from charging for e-books lending of any sort including remotely.

Proposal 35: DCMS will work with stakeholders to develop the secondary legislation for the extension of the Public Lending Right to non print books to enable simple, cost effective and easy to use arrangements for all public libraries.

This decision is part of £73 million in savings the DCMS is making, which also includes ending free swimming for those aged 16 and under and over 60s.

Not really a surprise, as we are all aware that cuts are going to hit everywhere, but still a little disappointing, especially the decision on offering free internet access.

Last weekend many of my fellow Legal Library and Information friends (and legal publishers/vendors) took over Brighton for the annual BIALL conference. I couldn’t make it, but I believe a good time was had. But it did get me thinking.

Each year several awards are handed out including those for Law librarian of the Year (congratulations Jules Winterton, Associate Director and Librarian, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for winning this one this year), Best Legal Information Service, Supplier of the Year Award, and Legal Journals Award.

The latter two are always interesting – won this year by Wildy & Sons Ltd and Common Market Law Review respectively, but for me the more interesting award would be for Worst Supplier of the Year Award, and/or Worst Legal Journals Award – or maybe a Legal Information ‘Villain’ award. Yes, we should recognise excellence but we should also as an association be turning the spotlight on those who consistently demonstrate poor customer service, excessively hike prices without justification and who – in the buzz word of our new government – are anything but ‘transparent’ in their subscription costs.

So, what say you BIALL. How about next year we have a new category for those who should be doing better.

In the meantime, your nominees for worst legal supplier/publisher of the year – feel free to be anonymous - are more than welcomed.

KPMG have published a white paper entitled ‘Payment for Success’ that has done the unthinkable – it’s annoyed a bunch of Librarians. It’s true, we do get annoyed and sometimes to levels when we go Shhhhhhhh! loudly.

However, like those in other professions - ‘The presenting issue is about levels of spending, but the real issues are about shifting control from providers to their customers and from bureaucrats to enterprising professionals.’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – we tend to get really annoyed by people making sweeping, ill-informed, and unreferenced claims about our profession.

The report – which makes some valid general points about tackling problem with public services – ‘Performance management has, in most cases, been undermined by its disconnect from financial management, which remains poor in many parts of the public sector’ ( KPMG – Payment for Success) – also talks a lot of old tosh too.

For example, there are 3 principles to the strategy:

(a) Three distinct customer roles should be created for each of the different types of service – personal, local and national – with these customers radically empowered to decide what they want and from whom
(b) Payment by results should be implemented across the public sector without exception – where it exists already, it should be made more forceful and sophisticated, where it does not exist, it should be introduced with very limited transitional periods.
(c ) Public service providers should be given almost total freedom to respond effectively to their customers and the PBR regime, supported by the active divestment of public sector staff into independent providers in control of their own future.

So correct me if I am reading this incorrectly, but that final one is saying all public sector staff should be outsourced

Another problem is there are just too many people with different jobs and professions working in local government.

‘One example is children services, where there has been a great emphasis recently on co-ordination amongst the many professionals. Success if often defined as having up to 10 different professionals from maybe 6 organisations around a table to discuss a family’s situation ( e.g. a social worker, an educational psychologist, an education welfare officer, a police officer, a pastoral teacher, a health visitor, a doctor, a housing officer, a community worker, a youth worker, a probation officer, etc). Better outcomes and value for money could well come from forging new professions which blend together skills and reducing the number of organisations involved, rather than yet more bureaucracy to manage the fragmentation.’

Now, I am all for ‘forging new professions’ but what are they suggesting on blending here and how? Why not just someone who is trained in more than one area?

But then we get to Libraries, where the reports says the following

‘A “local big state” is no more desirable than a “central big state”. Local government should seek to devolve to the most local level possible and to encourage communities to take over services. One example would be libraries. Libraries face funding challenges – in that they are more discretionary than other services, usage has declined, the unit cost of lending a book can be more expensive than the wholesale price of a book and customers have new book and information media and services (e.g. Amazon, social networking sites, etc). The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage, because communities believe that a local library belongs to them, not the council, and they believe in the future potential of the library to do great things. Devolution can allow new ideas to develop. For example – in North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff, whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales; much of the public space in a library is badly used storing infrequently used books; e-government has put libraries on line, but they still focus on a buildings based service; too many community groups are spending scarce resource on premises; where some councils have handed the library back to the community, they have often turned it into a much more vibrant community organisation and space. Giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology, whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff, poor use of space and unnecessary stock.’

Let’s leave aside evidence that visits to libraries and library usage usually rises as the economy declines. (Rising to the challenge: a look at the role of public libraries in times of recession, Christine Rooney-Browne, Library Review, 2009 Volume: 58 Issue: 5 Page: 341 – 352) and just look at what KMPG assert.

‘Libraries face funding challenges’ – in that they are more discretionary than other services,, - Libraries like all local services do indeed face funding challenges, nothing new there.

‘Usage has declined’ –According to this BBC new story  (from figures by the Chartered Institute of Public Finanace and Accountancy) on the 2008/9 figures, there was a year-on-year decrease in visits to libraries in England of 1.4%, a decrease of 4.1% in Northern Ireland and an increase 0.4% in Scotland, and an increase of 3.7% in Wales. So, overall, yes, this does seem to show a decline in numbers visiting – if only slight. But this doesn’t tell the whole story as shown by the ‘unnecessary stock point below.

‘The level of community resistance to closing a library is usually disproportionate to the level of local usage.’ - This CAN be true, in the same way it is true if the local council tries to shut down a local school, swimming pool, or pub etc. This ‘disproportionate’ mass are usually those who recognise that even though they may not use the resource that it is a vital part of the community – especially for the young and the old.

‘In North America libraries are often run by volunteers not paid council staff’ – Well, bully for them, although ‘where does this ‘often’ claim come from. Sure the ALA would be surprised by this.

‘Whilst in the UK charity shops often have waiting lists of volunteers wanting to help them with book sales’ – That’s great, but if they want to sell books maybe they should go volunteer at Waterstones. If someone comes in and asks if they have a particular book are they going to know? Do they catalogue the books that come in, in any form, or do they just stick a price sticker on and stick it on a shelf.

‘Giving councils total freedom on libraries could mean that they create huge social value from engaging a community in running its own library, backed up with some modern technology.’ Seriously you’d think that the average library didn’t already engage with the local community and offer space for adult education etc, and that also they were still dark dusty places where there were no computers. We were doing both of these back in Swansea 15 years ago. And believe me people already think they run the library as anyone who works/has worked in public libraries and has been on the end of the ‘I pay your wages’ line will be fully aware.

‘Whilst also saving large amounts of money on over-skilled paid staff’ – Most frontline staff in public libraries are library assistants who are often not qualified librarians – it’s how I started off myself in Swansea Libraries. Those that are qualified are few, and if they are ‘over-skilled’ I’d like the authors of this report to visit a library and tell them just how they are over-skilled by detailing the skills that they have and how those are not suitable for the work in the library. In fact CILIP should call them out on this point. Let them prove they are not just under-skilled at the task of white paper writing.

‘Poor use of space’ – I’m sure there is some poor use of space in some of our libraries, especially older ones in building that are less flexible, but in most I have been in this is not the case – far from it in fact. There are areas for sitting, using computers, borrowing videos, CDs, DVD etc Indeed, if anything the only complaints tend to be from those who think there should be more BOOKS.

‘And unnecessary stock.’ Is that why, according to the BBC item mentioned above, the number of books issued went up in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? - 6.8% in Wales, 0.6% in England, 1.7% in Scotland and 3.6% in Northern Ireland. An increase in that unnecessary stock being borrowed by the public obviously.

I’m not for one moment saying that Libraries are not facing serious challenges, nor am I saying that there is not a role for more community involvement in supporting them, but KPMG’s lazy paragraph on my profession, like much of the previous government’s ramblings, shows clearly that the authors have not been in a library recently. It also shows they are too lazy to bother to back up their claims with any references.

I’m a qualified librarian – a lot of you reading will already know that. I spent almost 10 years working in public libraries and think public libraries are still hugely important in our society. I’m also a fan of comedy and humour, including material that is occasionally close to the bone. I’m a firm believer that no topic should be taboo as far as comedy is concerned.

Why am I telling you this? I followed a link on Twitter (via CILIPInfo) to a piece on US Library Journal site concerning a line in a recent Jay Leno monologue where he made light of proposed library cuts in California. Leno said “People here in Los Angeles are upset that the mayor’s proposed plan to cut the budget of libraries… This could affect as many as nine people.”

You may or not find this a funny line as written or as said by Jay Leno. But would you as a Librarian then write to Mr Leno to tell him it wasn’t funny and that he was making light of a serious situation? Well, City Librarian Martín Gómez did. He wrote a letter telling Leno how he was ‘dismayed’ by his attempt to find humour in the proposed cuts, and that his nine people jibe “added insult to injury”. He added: “Despite what you may think, these cuts are no laughing matter to the 17 million people who use the city’s libraries each year.”

Now I am pleased that Mr Gómez cares deeply for the plight of Los Angeles libraries, really, I am. However, If I were in that situation I’d also be quite embarrassed to have a boss who plainly does not understand the concept of comedy and humour. (the LJ seemingly doesn’t either: “Does Tonight Show host Jay Leno think libraries are worth much? Apparently not”).

I don’t think the Leno line is particularly funny but should it be off limits to try and make light of it for comedic value? No, don’t think so. Leno is not a news reporter, he is not there to report ‘the facts’, he is there to try and get a laugh. And no-one who was watching would have been sitting there thinking - wow, only nine people use the libraries, yes, let’s axe them.

If I were Leno I’d respond on air - apologise and say “It seems I said it could affect as many as nine people. I accept that was wrong. Apparently it is 17 people.”

It’s been a while since there was any CIPA law to get my teeth into – that’s the US’s Children’s Internet Protection Act. But a State law case in Washington has once again put it and the issue of using filters to block content in public libraries in the spotlight.

Last week the Washington State Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that a local library’s policy of filtering various categories of web content and of not disabling those filter at the request of adult patrons was not a breach of Article I, section 5 of the State Constitution, which says that “[e]very person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for abuse of that right.” The right is widely accepted to encompasses the freedom to read as well.

North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) is required to certify its compliance with CIPA in order to get discounted internet connection under the Library Services and Technology Act and the eRate program under the Communications Act 1996. To qualify for these discounts Libraries must install filtering software on ALL their computers to block material ‘harmful to minors’.

The plaintiffs in the case argued that the filtering was overbroad and constituted prior restraint and an impermissible content based restriction of free speech. The Court, citing the majority in the US Supreme Court’s decision in US v ALA, said it would be a mistake to extend prior restraint to the context of public libraries, as prior restraint seeks to prohibit future speech rather than speech that has occurred and that a library’s decision to use filtering software is a collection decision, not a restraint on speech. Just as they would choose not to purchase books, journals – such as pornographic ones – for their physical collection, filters allowed them to do the same for internet content.

Libraries the court argues have no obligation to provide universal coverage of all constitutionally protected speech. Due to the vast amount of content on the internet it is entirely reasonable to ‘exclude certain categories of content, without making individualised judgement that everything they do make available has requisite and appropriate quality’. Thus the majority concluded ” NCRL’s filtering policy, when applied, is not comparable to removal of items from NCRL’s collection, but rather acquisition of materials to add to its collection. NCRL has made the only kind of realistic choice of materials that is possible without unduly and unnecessarily curtailing the information available to a bare trickle — or a few drops — of the vast river of information available on the Internet.”

On the question of overblocking the court once again cited the majority in US v ALA and said the constitutional issue is ‘dispelled’ if the material that is erroneously blocked is easily unblocked at the request of an adult, and they point to a process where a patron may email NCRL administrators to ask that the blocking of a certain page/site is manually overridden. Examples provided showed this was done within 1-3 days. Because of this the court concluded “a public library may filter internet access for all patrons without disabling the filter to allow access to web sites containing constitutionally protected speech upon request of an adult library patron.”

Whilst reading all this, whilst you might not agree with the result it is hard not to find a logic – maybe even a convincing and balance logic in the argument. However, if we actually look at CIPA and the US Supreme Court decision we start to see cracks in the Washington Court’s majority view.

First off, CIPA doesn’t deal with text – at all : as pointed out in the dissenting opinions of Judges Stevens and Souter, in US v ALA, the Act deals with ‘visual depictions’ only.

Section 1721(b) of CIPA requires public libraries that participate in the federal e-rate program to certify to the FCC that they are:
‘(i) enforcing a policy of internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to computers with internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are (I) obscene; or (II) child pornography.’

Even if it did require text to be blocked CIPA only says libraries may ‘ the technology protection measure’, not that they must; gives no time frame for this to happen and forces adult patrons to justify their ‘bona fide’ and ‘lawful’ purpose for viewing a site/content that is blocked.

As pointed out by Judge Chambers, writing the dissent in the Washington case , eight of the 12 US Supreme Court justices found the ability of a patron to disable the filter constitutionally critical to finding CIPA lawful. Two argued that if libraries failed to remove filters at an adult’s request ‘without significant delay’ a library patron could sue on constitutional grounds.

On the issue of whether filtering was akin to book buying decision the dissenting opinion of Judge Souter in US v ALA is also worth repeating. He pointed out that there is a big difference between deciding whether to buy a book, and actually buying it and then blocking access to parts of it. He suggested that the libraries in question had already made the purchasing decision to buy the computers and/or connect to the internet. He likened the subsequent censoring of the internet’s content to that of a library ‘buying an encyclopaedia and then cutting out pages with anything thought to be unsuitable for adults’.

NCRL put forward no compelling reason in this case why filters could not be disabled on request for adult patrons, and the court’s opinion misses the importance placed on this, even by a large party of the majority in US v ALA. I hope the plaintiffs in this case appeal this case further arguing that NCRL is not in compliance with its responsibilities under CIPA.

The Government has published the Digital Economy Bill. It contains lots of interesting things, which I may come back to in further pots, but I thought that as a Librarian (it is easy to forget reading this blog), I should bring people’s attention to Section 44 - Public lending right
(1)
Section 5(2) of the Public Lending Right Act 1979 (interpretation) is amended

as follows.

(2) Before the definition of “local library authority” insert—

““author”, in relation to a work recorded as a sound recording, includes a producer or narrator;
“book” includes—

(a) a work recorded as a sound recording and consisting mainly of spoken words (an “audio-book”), and

(b) a work, other than an audio-book, recorded in electronic form and consisting mainly of (or of any combination of) written or spoken words or still pictures (an “e-book”)

“lent out”—

(a) means made available to a member of the public for use away from library premises for a limited time, but
(b) does not include communicated by means of electronic transmission to a place other than library premises, and “loan” and “borrowed” are to be read accordingly;

“library premises” has the meaning given in section 8(7) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964;”.

(3) After the definition of “prescribed” insert—

““producer” has the meaning given in section 178 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;”.

(4) At the end of the definition of “the register” omit “and”.

(5) After the definition of “the Registrar” insert—

““sound recording” has the meaning given in section 5A(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”

(6) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(7) In section 40A (permitted acts in relation to copyright works: lending of copies by libraries or archives), for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Copyright in a work of any description is not infringed by the following acts by a public library in relation to a book within the public lending

right scheme—

(a) lending the book;

(b) in relation to an audio-book or e-book, copying or issuing a copy of the book as an act incidental to lending it.

(1A) In subsection (1)—

(a) “book”, “audio-book” and “e-book” have the meanings given in section 5 of the Public Lending Right Act 1979

(b) “the public lending right scheme” means the scheme in force under section 1 of that Act,

(c) a book is within the public lending right scheme if it is a book within the meaning of the provisions of the scheme relating to eligibility, whether or not it is in fact eligible, and
(d) “lending” is to be read in accordance with the definition of “lent out” in section 5 of that Act (and section 18A of this Act does not apply).”

(8) In Schedule 2, in paragraph 6B (permitted acts in relation to performances: lending of copies by libraries or archives)

(a) at the beginning insert—

“(A1) The rights conferred by this Chapter are not infringed by the following acts by a public library in relation to a book within the public lending right scheme—

(a) lending the book;

(b) in relation to an audio-book or e-book, copying or issuing a copy of the book as an act incidental to lending it.

(A2) Expressions used in sub-paragraph (A1) have the same meaning as in section 40A(1).”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for “this paragraph” substitute “sub-paragraph (1)”.

The most interesting thing seems to be the clause that states that ‘lent out’, ‘loan’, ‘borrowed’ do not include anythng ‘commnicated by means of electronic transmission’ to anywhere outside of the library So, no eBook loans over the internet then. How forward thinking.

Woodsiegirl - yes her again, had a nice post about why she became a librarian. She liked it so much she set up a wiki for others to share their stories too.

She became a librarian by accident. My mom often used to mention my name and accidents too.

When I was younger, a lot of friends had birthdays in September and October. I felt left out having to wait until December, and the final day of December at that, for my birthday. It was at that moment I knew that i wanted to be a Libran.

This goal has been misheard frequently over the years by people who were convinced that what I actually wanted was to become a Librarian. Eventually, I gave in.

And the rest, as they say, is actually quite dull and boring - well except fpr those years as Ron Jeremy’s stunt double - and explains why I don’t have any friends or get out much

The end

All the talk in the legal information world over the past couple of days has been around an unfortunate marketing email from West (Westlaw to us in the UK) advertising the usefulness of desktop access to their legal research products. The email asked the question:

“ARE YOU ON A FIRST NAME BASIS WITH THE LIBRARIAN?”

I guess that means that they will then go on to say how this is a good thing; as this Librarian or Information Officer will be able help this lawyer get the best out of his or her legal research and help them identify the best products and resources to answer any legal research questions they might have?

No, wait, that’s not it. It goes on.

“If so, chances are, you’re spending too much time in the library.”

Oh … ok. The key to getting the best legal research, at your finger tips, is to make sure you avoid finding out the librarians first name at all costs, and even if you do find out , don’t EVER use it. Just call them, MR, MRS or Ms Librarian – they’ll like that. If you must, you’d probably be safe using their surname, but you know how one thing can lead to another and once you start down that slippery slope, next thing you know you’ll be having an affair and naming your illegitimate offspring Chitty.

Anyway, what should you do if you are spending too much time in the Library?

“What you need is fast, reliable research you can access right in your office. And all it takes is West”

Phew, thank West for that.

Anne Ellis, Senior Director, Librarian Relations at Thomson Reuters (owners of West) responded calling the email ‘unfortunate’. adding “It’s important that you understand that this does not reflect in any way how West feels about and values librarians….I’ve talked to the people behind the e-mail and can assure you that they meant no harm. They now understand that the marketing piece was in poor taste and I have been assured that this will not happen again.”

To be fair to West, this response was a good one, and was also relatively quick. However, it did raise the question as to who at West actually signs off on such marketing emails.
And this is where the problems begin. Most of the big legal information providers, West, Lexis, PLC etc have people working for them that like, understand and value the role and the importance Librarians and information workers play in ensuring that lawyers get the best use of their products. Indeed they regularly reach out to get our feedback and input on new products and services or revamps to current products and services. However, there are a small number who have less understanding of the wider scheme of things and who just want to sell as much ‘product’ as possible.

That’s what sales people do. That’s what you pay them to do and incentivise them to do. The problem can be that sometimes when those selling the products or services just see the sale and don’t see or understand the thing they’re selling. Some might argue that they don’t need to, the bottom line is if they sell it or not.

The current economic climate has meant that most firms have looked to tighten their belts and make cuts in resources – both in headcount and in subscriptions to legal resources. West, Lexis etc know this. This is why products will now often be pitched directly to lawyers and in a way that implies that the cost of whatever product or services will be a saving because it might mean you don’t need, or no longer need a Librarian, a Professional Support Lawyer, a Paralegal, etc.

This email is an example of that. West say it was “in poor taste” and “will not happen again.” Time will tell whether or not actions match the words.

West and others should realise that antagonising and insulting a body of people who are usually the ones that know your services and products best, and who are – in these times – actually the ones who will be fighting to justify continuing subscribing to your products and services when managing partners – who may just see the bottom line cost - are looking for cuts in spending, and looking for reasons why something shouldn’t be cancelled. Yes, it is us that know the value of your services and who can guarantee that lawyers are aware of that value. Ignore or insult us at your peril.

Some other comments from the Blogs:
http://www.librarystuff.net/2009/08/24/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-lexis-thomson-reuterswest-desperation/
http://outofthejungle.blogspot.com/2009/08/thomson-west-epic-pr-fail.html
http://jennielaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-to-insult-your-users.html
http://listproc.ucdavis.edu/archives/law-lib/law-lib.log0908/0199.html
http://theliskid.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/apparently-the-library-wastes-time/