NASA’s Rocky History Of Library Closures; NASA Watch, January 3, 2026

 Keith Cowing, NASA Watch; NASA’s Rocky History Of Library Closures

"Keith’s note: NASA has been closing its libraries for a long time. Budgetary and building issues are usually the prime reason. Usually, stuff gets moved around and put in storage for years until the storage costs mount and then a portion ends up in someone’s library – somewhere – and the rest gets shipped to some generic GSA warehouse – or thrown away. Now it is GSFC’s turn to go through this painful process – not only with their collection but also the NASA HQ library that was moved there when the HQ library was converted to a visitor center. They have assured NASA HQ that nothing valuable will be lost. NASA’s record in this regard is somewhat rocky. More below.

To be certain, a lot of the material is already online at places like The  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) or the Internet Archive or university libraries. But a lot of the material is NASA-generated and niche-oriented such that only a few copies – sometimes one copy – exists. A lot of it goes back to NACA days.

I took this picture (above) at NASA Ames while their library was being removed. I am told that NASA HQ has been assured that nothing of value will be thrown out and that important things that have not been electronically stored will be. But the budget pressures are strong.

Some of you may recall the time when Dennis Wingo and I did a diving catch of all the 1960s Lunar Orbiter program image tapes that were in a remote warehouse and JPL wanted to get rid of them. We started the Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project (LOIRP). We drove the tapes up to NASA Ames in two large rental trucks and assembled a team of retirees and college kids to bring the data back (link to New York Times) from the past at resolutions simply impossible to achieve back in the day. And of course you recall the whole ‘lost Apollo 11 landing tapes’ thing.

So, as these libraries close, I hope everyone at GSFC please keeps their eyes open to assure that NASA is preserving this history and not throwing it out. And if they are not then let me know. Below are some earlier examples of controversial NASA library closures.

• Memo: The Army Is Closing A Library That NASA MSFC Paid For, (2019)
• GSFC Memo: NASA’s New Strategy: Close Its Reference Libraries (2011) related post
• NASA ARC Solicitation: Packing Dismantling, and Reconstruction of Main Technical Library, (2005) related post
• NASA ARC Internal Memo: Library Reshaping, (2005) related post
• NASA Ames Library “Downsizing” (2005) related post"

Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again; The Guardian, August 27, 2025

 J Oliver Conroy, The Guardian; Think you actually own all those movies you’ve been buying digitally? Think again

[Kip Currier: This article underscores why the First Sale Doctrine (Section 109a) of the U.S. Copyright Statute is such a boon for consumers and public libraries: when you (or a library) buy a physical book, you actually do own that physical book (though the copyright to that book remains with the copyright holder, which is an important distinction to remember).

The First Sale Doctrine is what enables a library to purchase physical books and then lend them to as many borrowers as it wants. Not so for digital books, which are generally licensed by publishers to users and libraries who pay for licenses to those digital books.

The bottom line: You as a digital content licensee only retain access to the digital items you license, so long as the holder of that license -- the licensor -- says you may have access to its licensed content.

This distinction between physical and digital content has put great pressure on library budgets to provide users with access to electronic resources, while libraries face ever-increasing fees from licensors. This fiscally-fraught environment has been exacerbated by Trump 2.0's dismantling of IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services) grants that supported the licensing of ebooks and audiobooks by libraries. Some states have said "enough" and are attempting to rebalance what some see as an unequal power dynamic between publishers and libraries/users. See "Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That. Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access." New York Times (July 16, 2025)]

[Excerpt]

"Regardless of whether the lawsuit is ultimately successful, it speaks to a real problem in an age when people access films, television series, music and video games through fickle online platforms: impermanence. The advent of streaming promised a world of digital riches in which we could access libraries of our favorite content whenever we wanted. It hasn’t exactly worked out that way...

The problem is that you aren’t downloading the movie, to own and watch forever; you’re just getting access to it on Amazon’s servers – a right that only lasts as long as Amazon also has access to the film, which depends on capricious licensing agreements that vary from title to title. A month or five years from now, that license may expire – and the movie will disappear from your Amazon library. Yet the $14.99 you paid does not reappear in your pocket."

Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That.; The New York Times, July 16, 2025

 Erik Ofgang, The New York Times; Libraries Pay More for E-Books. Some States Want to Change That.

Proposed legislation would pressure publishers to adjust borrowing limits and find other ways to widen access. 

"Librarians complain that publishers charge so much to license e-books that it’s busting library budgets and frustrating efforts to provide equitable access to reading materials. Big publishers and many authors say that e-book library access undermines their already struggling business models. Smaller presses are split."

‘Big Deal’ Cancellations Gain Momentum; Inside Higher Ed, May 8, 2018

Lindsay McKenzie, Inside Higher Ed; ‘Big Deal’ Cancellations Gain Momentum

"Also last year, SPARC, an advocacy group for open access and open education, launched a resource tracking big-deal cancellations worldwide. Greg Tananbaum, a senior consultant at SPARC, said that there is a “growing momentum” toward cancellations.

According to data from SPARC (which may not be comprehensive, said Tananbaum), in 2016 five U.S. and Canadian institutions announced cancellations with big publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier. In 2017, seven more North American institutions said they planned to cancel their big deals, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Kansas State University, among others. 

Motivation for Cancellation 

Both Tananbaum and Anderson agree that one factor driving cancellations of big deals is that library budgets are not growing at the same rate as the cost of subscriptions. Given budget restrictions, “there’s just a reality that tough choices have to be made,” said Tananbaum."

KY Governor’s Budget Would Eliminate Library Funds; Library Journal, February 7, 2018

Bob Warburton, Library Journal; KY Governor’s Budget Would Eliminate Library Funds

"DEPENDENT ON STATE AID

State law KRS 171.201 provides for a Public Library Services Improvement and Equalization Fund and uses a formula to determine how much county library systems can receive.

To begin with, each library system gets a lump sum grant: $9,000 for counties with a population of 22,000 or fewer, $8,000 for counties with a population between 22,001 and 45,000, and $7,000 for counties with more than 45,000 residents. The remaining aid is doled out at a rate of 73 cents per capita, to be used for a wide variety of purposes at the discretion of each library system.

The 2018–20 Executive Budget Recommendation posted online includes this notation: “Notwithstanding KRS 171.201, the Executive Budget provides no funding for non-construction state aid to local libraries.”

The vast majority of Kentucky libraries rely on tax revenue to fund the bulk of their operations. State aid is usually a smaller, but not insignificant, piece of their budget, Adler said. But for the 20 or so small county systems that aren’t part of a library taxing district, state aid is the only thing between them and serious financial hardship."

Four more Liverpool libraries face closure in fresh round of cuts; Guardian, February 20, 2017

Danuta Kean, Guardian; 

Four more Liverpool libraries face closure in fresh round of cuts

"At the end of last year the Libraries Taskforce, which was set up by the government to find a solution to the ailing sector, produced a report outlining a national strategy to turn around services in England and Wales. A £4m innovation fund to help disadvantaged communities was among the schemes outlined in the Libraries Deliver report.

However, campaigners have claimed it is too little too late, with library loans continuing their steep slide downwards, according to Nielsen LibScan. Official figures released by the government at the end of last year revealed library budgets in England and Wales had taken a £25m hit in the year to March 2016. Libraries minister Rob Wilson has vowed to protect them from further cuts, and has this year visited those authorities facing the most swingeing cuts."

Winning All Over the Map | Budgets & Funding; Library Journal, 2/3/15

John Chrastka and Rachel Korman, Library Journal; Winning All Over the Map | Budgets & Funding:

"On the face of it, 2014 looks like it was a pretty good year for libraries at the ballot box: some 148 libraries reporting for this tally won and 42 lost. About 78% of libraries passed funding, bonds, or authority measures in 2014. Over 1.7 million Americans voted yes for their libraries. Only 22% lost. While unfortunate, it doesn’t seem tragic or perilous. But at EveryLibrary, we’re worried about the 1.1 million Americans who voted no this year.

Nonetheless, we’d like to figure out why winners win and losers lose, in order to help ensure that there are more of the former and fewer of the latter in the future."