The Australian Public Libraries Statistical Report for the 2022-23 financial year is out. The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) and National and State Libraries Australasia (NSLA) release the report on 29 October but it has taken me a bit of time to get to it. What stood out for me was that while library memberships are slightly down, online visits to library’s websites and catalogues are up, even on numbers in the peak of COVID-19 lockdowns, and so is digital lending. Also, programming of events at libraries is increasing and this is being met with growing attendance numbers. Even as libraries demonstrate innovation and resilience in adapting to changing community needs and expectations I am concerned with the reporting that there has been a decline in staffing and in funding (in real terms – the funding is up but represents a decrease when adjusted for inflation) for public libraries. With increased demand across the gamat of reasons why people engage with libraries, we need to ensure libraries are able to continue to play the vital role they do in the community: providing access to information, skills, resources, activities and wi-fi! We cannot afford to let libraries stagnate in the AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → age. The need for broad access to affordable literacy and digital literacy skills, the encouragement of lifelong learning, the need for digital inclusion and community cohesion are all so important and libraries are important players in all of them.

Often the liability for defamatory comments or reviews sits with the commentor but there are situations under Australian law where the platform or operator of a social media account can also be liable. This article explores whether that risk increases when AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → is used to summarise users comments online. The argument goes like this: if defamatory content is included summaries of content generated by AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → then the company generating those summaries becomes a publisher for defamation purposes. I am not an expert on defamation but the idea throws up lots of issues. Do existing exceptions in defamation law apply and should they? Does the highly personalisable nature of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → outputs change the notion of harm caused by defamatory material? Also, the age of the ingested defamatory material and the date in which it is incorporated in an AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → output will matter given the single publication rule in the amended Uniform Defamation Laws means the material was published once when it is first uploaded or sent (in most states anyway). Regardless, add defamation law to the list of regulatory areas that may need a rethink in the age of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  →, especially as AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → summaries continue to pop up all over the internet. They have just started to appear in Google search results here in Australia and Meta has rolled out comment summaries in Facebook. Also, with the launch of AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → suggestions of places to visit (including summaries of user views) in Google Maps in the US, the feature will very likely come to Australia soon, bringing with it the potential for AIAI is tech and marketing speak for a range of technology that imitates human intellect. Learn more  → summaries to include defamatory content.

I haven’t read it in full yet, but Deloitte has released the next installment of the Media and Entertainment Consumer Insights report and there are some surprising trends reported. The number of active subscriptions households have is up so unsurprisingly so is total household spend on streaming services. Household streaming media spend is now over $60 per month, with Gen Z spending nearly $90. Weirdly, even though respondents exprsseed awareness of and concern about the cumulative cost of multiple subscriptions, the majority still expect to maintain the same number of subscriptions next year. It looks like streaming media brands are doing a good job creating perceived value which is cushioning them despite rising cost of living and housing affordability pressures.

Interestingly, and seemingly paradoxically to this Gen Z steaming media spend trend, Gen Z also recorded the biggest decrease in media consumption, cutting back the most on their content. Some of this could be because of conscious choices about media consumption and growing engagement in other forms of entertainment, but it could also just be because we are still feeling the impact of the most recent writers strike, streaming platform price hikes and intrusive ads disrupting chill time.

One other thing that struck me was the fact that Australians now watch as much streaming media as they do free-to-air. That really surprised me. In our household I can’t remember the last time I watched free-to-air. Yet, despite this, the free-to-air news organisations still enjoy a high level of trust – especially compared to social media and AI-generated news.

I finished reading the Theatre Network Australia (TNA) report on the working trends of independent artists and creatives in the performing arts in Australia which came out about a fortnight ago. While the sample size is small the findings are telling (even if not statistically significant). Unsurprisingly a significant number of indies are working other jobs outside of their creative practice to get by, they earn low incomes, especially from their creative work and they experience financial stress because they are largely excluded from financial resources and support. Of course, slow COVID-19 recovery amidst the dual cost of living and housing affordability crises compounds longstanding issues. It’s no surprise respondents raised mental health challenges. Even more alarming is the very real threat that independent artists, espeically mid-career artists, may leave the industry because of the state of things. All in all it was a pretty grim read.

It was World Digital Preservation Day on Thursday (7 November 2024) and as part of this year’s festivities the Digital Preservation Coalition (DCP) released the Community Archives Digital Preservation Toolkit Style: italics, which tied in well with this year’s theme of ‘Preserving Our Digital Content: Celebrating Communities’. It’s on the ‘to read’ pile. The importance of smaller, community-driven archives can’t be overstated. It is why I am so supportive of the preservation provisions in the Australian copyright law applying not just to big, institutional archival collections, but to any nonprofit archive. This intentionally takes in collections held by RSLs and nonprofit historical societies and family genealogy groups.