Two Articles of Interest

The publisher changes in library e-book licensing continue to get notice in the media. In part it might be because controversy sells, but major outlets are showing a genuine concern for what these changes, especially of course Macmillan’s, mean for readers.

Thanks to RF Working Group Member Susan Caron for sharing an editorial from the Toronto Star, “Public libraries need a fairer deal on ebooks.” It uses examples of the impacts of publisher decisions on the Toronto Library, but makes many good general points and its conclusion is as succinct a statement of the issue for libraries:

“ . . . these restrictive rules and high digital pricing for libraries is really starting to look like price gouging and publishers taking advantage of publicly funded institutions. Publishers seem, at best, to be pursuing a short-term sales strategy. But it comes at the risk of fostering a love of reading over the longer term and increasing the troubling digital divide between the have and have nots. The major houses should rethink these polices and find a way to give libraries a fairer deal.”

Stephen Spohn, Director-at-Large, Association of Specialized, Government and Cooperative Library Agencies, has shared an article from WGBH , “Inside The E-Book 'War' Waging Between Libraries And Publishers,” that is wider ranging.

It notes that “the Massachusetts Library Association said they have reached out the state’s attorney general, hoping that her office will bring legal action against publishers. Librarians are also hopeful that relief will come from a Congressional antitrust subcommittee investigating competition in digital markets,” confirming that states other than Rhode Island and Maryland are seeking possible legal remedy.

After reviewing a 5 year period Andrew Albanese terms “a plateau of mediocrity” in which neither libraries nor publishers were happy, the article goes into the arguments and counter arguments of the current environment.

Perhaps most intriguing, however, are, first, the notes on how Amazon may benefit the most from “the war” (and tough the article does not state is, can if be inferred that Amazon is holding the publishers’ collective feet to the fire as Amazon benefits from its own “exclusive content.” Second, the article looks at the possible outcome of legal recourse. “Einer Elhauge, an antitrust expert at Harvard Law School, has looked into this topic. Elhauge parsed the arguments, and as far as he can tell from all the media reports, libraries would not have an easy time winning this case. The publishers do not seem to be violating the rules. There’s no single publishing house with monopoly power. In fact, from a legal standpoint, Elhauge said, there could be an argument against libraries.”

I’m not legal expect and I don’t play one on the internet. I wonder if a possible tack would be to look at collusion. When the Big Publishers and Apple lost on agency pricing, there was no house with monopoly power either. And perhaps if legislators are interested in putting pressure on Big Tech, Amazon’s failure to license to libraries and privileging of one library vendor over others might offer something to consider. It’s always going to have been a difficult fight. But readers should need credit cards to be informed citizens. Both articles are worth a read, and the publicity for our views is important. So, my fellow librarians, look at both and then saddle up Rocinante. We ride because the war, if it must be called that, is worth fighting. A truce based upon a new license model, such as the one we proposed to Macmillan some weeks back on this site, might be the best result we can hope for, but our readers deserve our best effort.