Library Futures’ State Ebook Bill Template and AAP Out For Blood

Library Futures’ Kyle Courtney and Juliya Ziskina have released a Policy Statement and Draft eBook Legislative Language. They have helpfully summarized the state of the various ebook bills and provided a path forward with bill language that differs from the language in the Maryland law that did not withstand a court challenge.

While a different judge might rule differently on laws with the Maryland language, it is good to see an alternative that learns from the Maryland experience. That law was based on a draft that would have worked at the federal level but came a cropper as a state law, at least in one ruling. So, how best to let state bills work—and until libraries can get federal legislative traction, it will be up to states to lead in addressing the unfair terms we get from many publishers.

Please go straight to the source:

Library Futures supports legislation that aims to equitize the eBook marketplace. To that end, we have developed model legislative language that avoids the problematic Maryland language and that we therefore believe will hold up against legal challenges. In short, we propose model legislation grounded in state consumer protection, state contract law, state procurement law, and contract preemption. Our policy statement document explains the legal rationale behind our proposed model bill. You can also view an interactive map of current legislation and sign up for updates on Library Futures’s policy activities. Thank you to our community of experts for their edits, feedback, and input into this statement and bill, and thank you to Readers First and the community of library advocates who have worked for equitable ebook legislation in their states.

We look forward to working with you to ensure that libraries can fulfill their mission of preserving and providing broad, open, non-discriminatory, and equitable access to information and reading materials to the public. If you are interested in learning more or getting involved, please stay tuned for a webinar in early August. Until then, sign up for updates!

Libraries will not be own their own if they wish to move forward using draft language. Library Futures and others are standing ready to help.

Those seeking still more information to help talk with legislators would do well also to see ReadersFirst’s Elending Position Paper, which sets out the inequities libraries face in great detail and also undermines some of the false claims made by opponents of state ebook efforts, and our Publisher Price Watch, your library consumer guide to publisher charges.

In other news, as reported by Andrew Albanese in PW, the AAP is seeking $300,000 in legal costs from Maryland in that legal matter. Since the AAP itself avoided paying costs in their losing effort with Georgia State University, one might think they wouldn’t have the gall to ask. One would of course be wrong. This seems a pretty transparent effort to stop activity in other states. It won’t work. First, let’s hope the judge sends them home without money. Second, many states remain undaunted. If one bill becomes law, however, the publishers may decide not to deal with libraries in that state under the bill language set out in Library Futures. If that happens, all libraries will need to stand together for the good of our readers.

It is all-too-easy to see these efforts as anti-publisher and anti-author. They are not. Rather, fair prices could create an inflection point, when libraries begin to allocate more to digital. The publishers and vendors will get more, not less. More authors will see royalties—and new or less best-selling authors would benefit, especially the diverse authors that the publishers are saying they wish to promote. Together, we could extend reading, fight piracy, and expand the next generation of readers. It is of course hazardous to generalize about any profession, but I’d stake a fair bet that most librarians are not naturally eager for a fight. When fighting for our readers, we are fierce. We won’t quit. State efforts will continue. Still, I invite the publishers to talk. Give us 26 loans or two years metered at print retail prices, and preferably a perpetual option at say three times that amount and RF, at least, will stop ebook bill advocacy and see what happens. Macmillan, how about you? You tried an “experiment” in 2019. How about a one year experiment now on these same terms—it’s still a better deal than you get in print. Harper Collins, you generally charge retail plus 15%. Try dropping the 15%, adding a perpetual at higher cost, and see what happens? We could end the rancor, increase reading (and arguably consumer sales), and concentrate on the real need—growing and keeping readers.