This article discusses the debate around libraries using Netflix subscriptions to supplement their audiovisual collections. Some libraries have started using Netflix to provide patrons access to movies and TV shows that the library cannot afford to purchase. However, Netflix's terms of service prohibit libraries from lending materials acquired through Netflix. The article explores the ethical issues around disregarding terms of service agreements and questions how libraries can balance service, budgets, and good citizenship within the library community.

1. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0888-045X.htm
BL FLUX CAPACITY
23,4
Terms of service, cramped
budgets, and good library
212
citizenship: the Netflix dilemma
Accepted October 2010 Colleen S. Harris
Lupton Library, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga,
Tennessee, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the implications of libraries using Netflix to
supplement their own audiovisual collections.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the current discussion regarding breaking terms of
service is presented along with several complications that arise from libraries disregarding the Netflix
terms of service agreement.
Findings – The problem of providing patrons with access to materials that the library cannot afford
to purchase and which cannot be acquired via interlibrary loan has no simple answer. Librarians may
be in a unique position to encourage changes to terms of service that may be more friendly to lending
institutions, but only if they do not squander their legitimacy by disregarding current terms.
Research limitations/implications – Most of the conversation is based on anecdote and recent
practice. Very little has been written on how to fix this problem.
Practical implications – This paper brings this issue to the forefront in an effort to engage
librarians in a discussion about the ethical, practical and legal implications of breaking terms of
service in the pursuit of serving patrons.
Social implications – The culture of library practice could be affected by this issue, and may have
wider ramifications in terms of future copyright, licensing, and terms of service agreements.
Originality/value – The paper is timely, addressing a current question and debate within their field.
It proposes that librarians should find solutions only after seriously considering the legal, ethical, and
economic implications of their actions.
Keywords Libraries, Budgets, Audiovisual media
Paper type Research paper
As libraries face continued budget cuts, staff attrition, and increased demand from
users whose budgets are similarly strapped, librarians and other service managers are
forced to develop new and interesting methods for acquiring materials. As collections
budgets are cut, interlibrary loan requests soar. At the same time, enrollments at many
universities and colleges are increasing, placing heavier demands on library
collections. In nearly all cases, there is simply not enough money to go around, and
The Bottom Line: Managing Library something has to give.
Finances It is no wonder, then, that libraries are looking to other lending services to
Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010
pp. 212-214 supplement their own collections. Recently, there has been much discussion of libraries
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited taking advantage of Netflix subscriptions to augment lending of materials. Given the
0888-045X
DOI 10.1108/08880451011104045 fragile nature of audiovisual materials such as DVDs, the prohibitive cost of acquiring

2. every film requested by faculty and students, and the widespread practice of excluding The Netflix
audiovisual materials from interlibrary loan, acquiring a Netflix subscription appears dilemma
to be the perfect solution.
Healy (2010) notes that widespread use of Netflix by individuals made it a
no-brainer when the suggestion was made to purchase a subscription on behalf of the
library. Fitzgerald (2010) reports that a Netflix subscription saved the Concordia
College’s Scheele memorial Library over 3,000 dollars over the course of approximately 213
one year. Some librarians have weighed in stating that Netflix customer service
representatives have told them not to worry about the restrictive Terms of Service, and
that there will be no repercussions for using Netflix to supplement their library’s
lending practices.
On the other hand, librarian Meredith Farkas (2010) decries the willful violation of a
lending service’s terms of service, saying:
We are supposed to be the ones helping faculty stay on the straight-and-narrow regarding
copyright. What kind of an example are we setting when we show such flagrant disregard for
a company’s Terms of Service?
Hirtle (2010) goes even farther, comparing using Netflix to loan materials to using
BitTorrent to acquire (and then distribute) a copy of a movie the library does not own.
For Netflix’s part, the company’s vice president of corporate communication confirmed
that the Netflix terms of service preclude libraries re-loaning what they borrow
through the service, and that the fact Netflix is not pursuing library accounts in the
interest of stopping them should not be construed as permission (Kaya, 2010). Other
librarians are restricted from using Netflix as a collection supplement tool by cautious
university legal departments more wary of bending terms of service agreements.
There is currently a healthy debate about this in various venues, including the
FriendFeed and Twitter social networks, electronic library lists, via instant messenger
and in collection development meetings at libraries across the country. Aside from the
questions specific to borrowing and lending through Netflix, a larger question is raised:
is it the responsibility of librarians to push for the broadest possible application of
service, to widening the normally restrictive boundaries of legal agreements in the best
interest of getting materials to our users? Hirtle (2010) would seem to agree with this,
stating “negotiating with Netflix for different terms would be a start.” In the face of
librarians’ desire for input on the application of copyright law (particularly those
aspects guiding fair use and first sale), willfully violating the terms of service of
corporate lending institutions seems, as Farkas (2010) states, hypocritical.
Given all of this, and the nexus of service provision, insufficient funding, and
increased demand at which libraries operate, where does good library citizenship fall?
How do we balance our desire to provide excellent service, our inability to purchase
every item our patrons may request, the failings of interlibrary loan when it comes to
audiovisual material, and abiding by the terms of outside borrowing subscriptions?
While being frugal is essential to library survival in the current economic climate,
choosing cost-effectiveness over strictly following our licenses and terms of use may
well lead librarians to talk themselves out of their legitimate place at the table for
copyright, licensing, and other resource use discussions. The challenge is to find some
sort of middle way in which we act as stewards of our collections, champions of our
borrowers, and agents of resource agreement change without falling astray of our

3. BL professional ethics. Choosing to willfully violate terms of service agreements in order
to provide better service to our patrons (and less impact on our budgets) in the short
23,4 run may benefit us. What, though, will be the long-term effect on our ability to
participate as members in good faith of the resource-sharing community?
References
214 Farkas, M. (2010), “Netflix in libraries and hypocrisy”, available at: http://meredith.wolfwater.
com/wordpress/2010/09/18/netflix-in-libraries-and-hypocrisy/ (accessed September 21,
2010).
Fitzgerald, R. (2010), “Using Netflix at an academic library: a TTW guest post by Rebecca
Fitzgerald” available at: http://tametheweb.com/2010/09/09/using-netflix-at-an-academic-
library-a-ttw-guest-post-by-rebecca-fitzgerald/ (accessed September 21, 2010).
Healy, C. (2010), “Netflix in an academic library: a personal case study”, Library Trends, Vol. 58
No. 3, pp. 402-11.
Hirtle, P. (2010), “Using Netflix in a library”, available at: http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/
2010/09/using-netflix-in-a-library.html (accessed September 21, 2010).
Kaya, T. (2010), “Academic libraries add Netflix subscriptions”, available at: http://chronicle.
com/blogPost/blogPost-content/27018/ (accessed September 21, 2010).
About the author
Colleen S. Harris is an Assistant Professor and Head of Access Services at the University of
Tennessee at Chattanooga’s Lupton Library. Her work appears in Library Journal, Journal of
Access Services, and as book chapters in The Frugal Librarian: Thriving in Tough Economic
Times (ALA, 2011), Teaching Generation M: A Handbook for Librarians and Educators
(Neal-Schuman, 2009) and Writing and Publishing: The Librarian’s Handbook (American Library
Association, 2009). Colleen S. Harris can be contacted at: colleen-harris@utc.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints