Maryland A.G. Declines to Further Pursue the State's EBook Law

As noted by Andrew Albanese in PW, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office will not further pursue defending the state’s ebook law.

Marylanders, and indeed all in the library community, have every reason to be proud of Maryland’s legislators and A.G. Passing legislation unanimously and defending that legislation has brought much needed attention to unfair, even predatory terms that our county’s broken copyright laws allow the Big 5 to charge for their library digital content.

The Library of Congress is protected from some unfair terms in license agreements: CFR § 701.7 - Certain terms in license agreements . I find it ironic if unfortunate that Congress exempts its own library from the issue we face but that its laws seemingly forbid public libraries the same protection.

As the ALA notes in a statement,

The library community also has new public support from several important officials. For example, during the Maryland hearing, Judge Boardman said “It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” Here are several public statements by Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, made during the course of the lawsuit:

1. “Publishers capitalize on the digital revolution at libraries’ expense.”

2. “We [Office of the Attorney General of Maryland] think publishers should not be able to unfairly take advantage of Maryland public libraries. We will continue to pursue fair treatment for Maryland public libraries.”

3. “Many publishers have exploited the rapid advancement of digital technology to discriminate against public libraries when licensing e-books and audiobooks.”

4. “Technology has enabled publishers to create two classes of customers—those who can afford to buy electronic literary products and public libraries who serve those who cannot—while charging the latter substantially more for the same product.”

Legislators in at least 8 states have considered how the public coffers are being unfairly drained. Every bill may not pass, but at least three look promising. And the Maryland hearing is not binding on hearings in other states, and, should the AAP sue elsewhere, it has no guarantee of a favorable result. Other states have in any case learned from Maryland, and the bills are so tweaked that the AAP may find difficulty in challenging them. States may not be able set publisher terms, but they can certainly prevent public entities from entertaining unfair contracts. We eagerly await the results of other state legislation.

Maryland itself is not done, as the Maryland Library Association has stated:

We are disappointed to hear that the judge is considering the permanent injunction, even though it has been acknowledged that the treatment libraries are receiving from publishers is unfair. Should a permanent injunction be put into place, libraries in Maryland and across the county will continue to use all the avenues at our disposal to seek for reasonable terms with publishers to ensure that we can continue to provide access to digital materials. We applaud the work that Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and his team have done on behalf of Maryland's libraries and the individuals who rely on them every day.

We are not only unbowed but not even bloody. Even if that law has not stood for now, it has done much good. It should be a long time before even a major publisher tries any sort of embargo. And the attention to libraries’ just cause is invaluable.

Libraries are far from finished with this fight. The Maryland law is down, but libraries are not out and never shall be. We, our readers, and our legislators are tired of unfair terms. it is just a matter of how we get equity, for us and the readers who depend upon libraries to be informed.