Maryland Ebook Lawsuit Outcome

As noted by Andrew Albanese and many other outlets, a final order has been issued in the Maryland Ebook Law hearing.

"In its February 16, 2022 memorandum opinion, the Court determined that the Maryland Act likely conflicts with the Copyright Act in violation of the Supremacy Clause," Boardman's opinion reads. "Although neither AAP nor the State has moved for summary judgment on any claim, they agree a declaratory judgment may be entered... Therefore, for the reasons stated in the February 16, 2022 memorandum opinion, the Court finds that the Maryland Act conflicts with and is preempted by the Copyright Act. The Act 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'”

A permanent injunction has not been issued. Albanese notes that one aspect remains: "The only outstanding issue is AAP’s request for an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees," the footnote states, adding that the AAP "has advised the Court that the parties intend to brief whether AAP is entitled to fees and costs under those statutes." Oh, the AAP wants Maryland tax payers to shell out money when they advocate for more tax payer money for ebooks? It is of course in keeping with their actions all along.

AAP President and CEO Maria Pallante is of the opinion that this outcome will discourage other states.

She is of course wrong.

This ruling is not a precedent for another court, which may rule differently. And other laws may be tweaked to try a different path to get the publishers in the mood to negotiate—the only real intention of the Maryland law in the first place.

In the meantime, the Authors Guild has weighed in: “The Authors Guild has long been a champion of increasing funding to libraries so they can purchase more digital licenses they need to serve their patrons and communities – a far better method of ensuring libraries can acquire robust collections than controlling ebook and audiobook prices.

Talk about wrong! In a time of inflation, with libraries not seeing funding increases and struggling to meet expenses of all kinds, do these people really expect extra ebook funding? Who is going to provided it? The Authors Guild? What a joke. These lobbyists clearly have no idea of how libraries struggle.

It is of course very generous of the Authors Guild to propose that we get more money so that we can continue to pay the bloodsucking usurious rates the big publishers charge for library ebooks. Just look at our Publisher Price Watch. Need any more evidence that licenses for items we don’t even own and can keep for limited times are UNREASONABLE? I would actually be ashamed to ask for more under the given terms. “Dear legislators, please give us more ebook money so we can continue to pay exorbitant costs.”

We are fortunate in that a ruling may be different if a similar bill becomes law and is challenged. Libraries uphold copyright, but the publishers are using developments in book lending to evade the advantages we have under copyright and to disadvantage libraries with unreasonable digital prices.  Half a billion downloads may have occurred last year, but two issues remain.  First, as costs goes up—as most costs for libraries currently are--and library funding remains static, what we have achieved in the past will no longer be sustainable. And it isn’t any use for these lobbyists to glibly say they support libraries getting more funding. The only way publishers can help is price negotiation to reduce costs to something like print equivalency. Second, the current pricing models are bad for the publishing industry as well as for libraries, preventing the discovery of new and often more diverse authors. As increasing costs pressures and the unfair rates drive down our ability to provide content, a premium will be placed on only high circulating content. We will have to seek other ways to deliver diverse content as the publishers price themselves out of the library market, abandoning their partnership with libraries to the detriment of readers, their writers, and ultimately their bottom line as reading gradually but continually declines as a leisure activity.

We have limited funding. We really want the content, but only on reasonable terms. We continue to hope for publisher negotiation—real negotiation!—of terms. Until that happens, state—and, yes, other!—efforts will continue. It is the only responsible thing to do, for our states and for our readers.