Testimony on Rhode Island Bill

/

While attention is focused on Maryland’s ebook law being set aside (this iteration of it, anyway—but we’ll be back!), other states are forging ahead to bring bills into law. One is Rhode Island, where two librarians gave testimony before the Senate Education Committee on April 27th. Despite having to wait nearly four hours to testify, Ms. Sallee and Ms. Holden hit their marks and their comments were well-received by the legislators. They testified well to libraries’ fundamental points:

  • the deleterious changes in licensing, with circulation periods shortening in the last decade, even as costs escalate

  • the difficulty of maintaining good collections—or any sort of current collection—sustainably, with burdened by exploding metered licenses

  • the yawning gap between what libraries pay for print vs. digital

  • the disadvantages for Rhode Islanders, especially the most economically challenged, that current models create though the big publishers’ “stranglehold on libraries.”

The other side didn’t show up to provide oral testimony but provided written opposition. Of course, none of the lobbyist groups signing off (AAP of course, Authors Guild, American Booksellers, Motion Picture Association, BMI, Association of Magazine Media, etc.) are publishers of ebooks for libraries. They are there to protect the move to streaming/licenses, with libraries (and even individual consumers) being allowed to own nothing. Mustn’t let libraries unique and valuable mission of providing and preserving content create any sort of precedent to threaten their ability to milk the public coffers over and over in any format!

Their testimony of course is riddled with misinformation. Let’s look at a few quotes.

“By requiring the sale of a variety of works at below-market prices, it will lessen royalties paid to authors, directly harming their ability to earn a living from their craft.”

I count no fewer than three whoppers there:

  • Whopper # 1: “below-market prices.” Really? Let’s look at a sample work, No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency

    • Available to libraries in ebook format in 2010 for $14 on PERPETUAL license

    • In 2013, the cost went up to $44.85. How did this book suddenly triple in cost? At least it was still for a perpetual license

    • Today, it is $55 for a two-year license. Now that’s putting the “lice” in license, isn’t it? Let’s jack up the price and take away the content.

    • A library could pick up a new paper edition today for about $5. But even if were a new hardcover, we’d be paying no more than about $17.

    • Library ebook cost for next 10 years: $275. The gulf between digital and print costs for libraries is astounding. How is this market price? Translation of “market price”: in digital, as opposed to print, we can charge libraries whatever because, hey, digital gives us that ability and so it must give us that right.

  • Whopper # 2: “lessen royalties paid to authors.” Nope. Libraries will, if anything, spend more if we could get reasonable terms. An individual author might make less per sale but authors, plural, would make no less and probably more. How is it that you people don’t get that we don’t mind paying you, we just want fairness? You want a profit? Of course! Fine! How about a fair one? Here’s a novel idea: take advantage of the fact that digital costs less than print, give libraries a break, and watch us buy more copies and author royalties go up. And MORE authors—new authors, authors who aren’t best sellers—will benefit as we diversify our collections.

  • Whopper # 3: “requiring the sale” Nope. Have you looked at the amended bill? it won’t require the sale. It won’t allow libraries to enter unfair contracts. But it won’t require sales. How is a state simply saying that its money ca no longer be spent less effectively, even profligately, “requiring a sale”?

Here’s another one , though: “We welcome, for example, discussions to ensure libraries have the funding necessary to procure and provide widespread access to robust physical and digital collections, and to ensure the citizens of Rhode Island have equitable access the technology and broadband connectivity that lets them enjoy these materials.” BS BS BS. Let’s examine this blather. Last time I checked, this funding was coming from the public coffers. Are you offering to help pay? Nah, didn’t think so. So where’s this funding coming from? Hmm, looks like the tax payer. So here’s what this really seems to be saying : “We welcome discussions that will put even more state funding into the trough at our current usurious rates.” I bet you do welcome more at the same price. Here’s a shorter version of the statement: “FEED US!”

Publishers, I can’t believe you are happy with this presentation. The phony claims of lobbyists aside, we think there is room for true negotiation and the partnership that has benefitted us both for over one hundred years. These state bills are a means. You have never negotiated, actually negotiated, fair prices. Talk with us.

The real question for those of use outside Rhode Island is, how do we help? I mean other than pursue our own legislation and spend money on publishes that do give far deals, even if that means creating a market for indie and small press works and eschewing the best seller in digital until we get what is fair to our tax payers and good for our readers? Suppose Rhode Island passes its law, there is no negotiation of terms, and their libraries don’t enter unfair contracts? Will we support them? Will we engage in a campaign to let our readers know the problem—that their ability to read library works is threatened not only by censorship challenges but by libraries’ inability to create quality sustainable digital collections? When the call comes, will we answer?

If not, then the shame is ours.