An Exchange of Letters to PW

An attorney for the Association of American Publishers (AAP) has written a letter to the editor of Publishers Weekly claiming a bill passed by the Maryland legislation and awaiting the Governor’s signature is “likely unconstitutional,” attacking an opposing opinion from ALA counsel as quoted by PW in an article about the legislation.

This letter’s legal claims aside—though those will be addressed—RF calls foul. The AAP attorney says it was “regrettable” that PW published an opposing claim. Isn’t the essence of responsible journalism to present legitimate arguments? Take up the argument, by all means, but don’t suggest a publication has erred by covering opposing opinions. This neo-Trumpian effort at painting a legitimate if opposing point-of-view as mere disinformation is lacking in intellectual rigor, dishonest, and just plain cowardly.

The ALA counsel has replied with a letter taking AAP’s attorney to task. It points out “PW was just engaging in good journalism, providing different points of view concerning a complex policy issue: federal preemption of state legislation. If Mr. Hart believes I made a ‘false statement,’ he knows where to find me to engage in a substantive discussion. “

It continues to address a legal point: “Nothing in the Copyright Act nor the U.S. Constitution prevents the State of Maryland from requiring equitable access to copyrighted works sold in Maryland. By unreasonably discriminating against public libraries, publishers unreasonably discriminate against the populations served by public libraries.”

Just so. It is of course more complex an issue than this example, but if I were to walk into a bookstore to buy a book in Maryland, could a publisher tell the store owner not to sell to me because I was going to put the book in a library? Our Maryland bill specifically guarantees we will circulate content under license terms set by the publishers themselves. It transfers no ownership rights to us. And who after all has all the power when it come to the distribution of digital content through libraries? It’s not like we in Maryland libraries are strapping on our hob-nailed boots, the better to grind the poor powerless publishers gleefully under our heels. Publishers have ever called the ebook tune, and libraries dance to that tune or sit out as wallflowers. Are you licensing in Maryland? Fine. All we in libraries want is access under the terms you set. Maryland has a compelling interest in allowing library readers access to the full range of content that the AAP itself says is “valuable.” The legislation is reasonable, not radical. We in Maryland libraries are grateful to our legislators for standing for our residents rights to be informed without having to plunk down a credit card. And RF thanks PW for a fair look at this matter, including posting the AAP objections exactly as presented.