Maryland AG Defends the State's Ebook Bill
/Last Friday, Attorney Generals Frosh and his office filed to dismiss the Association of American Publishers' (AAP) suit against Maryland's ebook law.
Here's a link to the motion. It's 42 pages long and a lot to digest, but very well done.
For a detailed look at many of the documents related to the case, including motions, affidavits and testimonies from both sides, please visit Gary Price’s fine work on InfoDocket. https://www.infodocket.com/2021/12/09/the-association-of-american-publishers-files-suit-against-the-state-of-maryland-over-unprecedented-encroachment-into-federally-protected-copyrights/
As usual, he is doing a great job keeping us all up-to-date on library news.
Here's a good neutral summary of where we are in the suit from PW”s Andrew Albanese: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/88308-maryland-defends-its-library-e-book-law-seeks-dismissal-of-aap-lawsuit.html.
He covers the AAP response to our AG’s filing, including the fact it is unusual for a plaintiff to comment on ongoing legislation, especially when they have a chance for an official response coming up. I will say nothing of it beyond noting that this claim—“public access to original works of authorship is not achieved by government fiat or manipulation of terms, but rather through a system of economic incentives that foster investment, rewards, and continuous market innovations during a statutory term of protection”--would be fine if libraries HAD ever able to negotiate ebook terms, had not only seen terms presented to us via fiat, and found that any “economic incentive” had been great for one side and not at all good for us. Caught between public demand for digital, the pandemic, and usurious price gouging, our only recourse would be a wholesale boycott of most large publishers—not an attractive option, as it would stop access to content while suiting some in the publishing industry very nicely—or the course we are taking.
Here’s a statement from Alan Inouye, ALA’s Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations : “The Attorney General of Maryland provides a thorough and convincing argument that soundly refutes each claim by the Association of American Publishers. The American Library Association agrees with the Attorney General’s assessment that ‘publishers capitalize on the digital revolution at libraries’ expense’ (p. 6). Accordingly, the Maryland law needs to remain in place as a modest step towards positive progress in the public interest.”
Here's a statement (with which I'm sure we will all agree) from the University System of Maryland & Affiliated Institutions (USMAI) supporting AG Frosh's actions. I especially like the conclusion: "USMAI members, including the University of Maryland, College Park, and 16 other academic libraries, assert that all Marylanders benefit when residents have the equitable access to information and knowledge that they need to thrive in the 21st century."
The AAP has until the 28th to respond. The initial hearing on the preliminary injunction and dismissal is February 7th.
We in Maryland libraries thank our legislature and especially our Attorney General's office for the strong statement and defense of our residents' ability to get content through their libraries. We believe that our position is not only legal but right. Libraries should have access to any content that is licensed to the public. That content should be available to libraries on reasonable terms. We have released a statement explaining what we think reasonable, based upon the long-standing precedent provided by print under copyright. Our law includes provisions to ensure copyright is kept intact and libraries will use content responsibly. We thank the many publishers who already make their content available to libraries on reasonable terms, and we continue to hope for fruitful and voluntary negotiations between the library community and the larger publishers once this unnecessary lawsuit is settled, or even before then. It seems very interesting that none of the publishers have joined this suit, doesn’t it?
No matter the outcome—but I think Maryland has a chance of prevailing—this is a proud day for our state. We never wanted a lawsuit. We had hoped our law would create an avenue for publishers to talk and actually negotiate rather than simply present their license terms for us to use or not. But now that a lawsuit has come, all of us across the county can be inspired by this strong defense of one state’s residents' right to get content through libraries and of libraries' need to have fair terms.