Connecticut Introduces a Bill With A Difference
/A hearing is scheduled tomorrow on Connecticut HB6800.
This bill is different from many others (and from another bill in Connecticut itself) in that it doesn’t mention license costs. The word "reasonable” is used twice but never about price. Instead, its aim seems to make the terms of licensing just a bit more favorable to libraries, bringing digital licenses more in-line with what we can do under traditional (print) lending.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/TOB/H/PDF/2023HB-06800-R00-HB.PDF
Info Page
Says one commentator, “The goal is to create an environment in which libraries have more ability to negotiate with vendors and in ways that are more favorable than we currently have.”
Do take a look at the bill itself, but here’s a quick gloss:
Ebooks must be able to be loaned through all legitimate platforms, including through ILL (though I'm not sure how that would be done via ILL outside of a platform like, say, Palace). Does this mean a digital version (say EPUB) could be transformed to plain text, for instance, and sent for a limited period through ILL? Interesting!
Ebooks may be loaned any number times if a time limit is placed on license (so, no more 2 years or 52 circ licenses);
Libraries may not be restricted from getting as many licenses as they wish on the day a title becomes available to the public (no "windowing, ala Macmillan);
libraries may make preservation copies (but no provision is made for future sharing of those copies—so if a title is licensed, could a preservation copy somehow be viewed after the license?);
libraries may discuss the terms of the license with other libraries (I like this one!--too often, we are prevented from sharing and so knowing what deals are being made);
So far, nothing too unexceptional, though some points will need clarification. One other point seems more radical: no provision may restrict "the duration of the license agreement unless the publisher has also offered the library a license agreement (A) based on a pay-per-use model, or (B) that provides for the perpetual public use of the electronic literary material upon commercially reasonable terms in consideration of the library's mission." Does that mean a license for, say, two years may not be in place unless a perpetual access license is also offered?
That's what it looks like to me. Ideally, it would lead to many options: metered by time at a lower cost, perhaps perpetual access at a higher one. Metered licenses only, unless very lower priced indeed and offered for a long time with the option to share after a title is no longer licensed, are no good for libraries.
So, unless a perpetual access license is also offered, a time metered one may not be or else the publisher may not offer licenses in Connecticut.
This last point is important. The AAP and various others will not doubt say this bill is unconstitutional and preempted because it restricts what publishers do. Nope. It doesn’t say the publishers must do these things. It only says that licenses that don’t allow for these things are not valid in Connecticut. The publishers can always choose not to license there.
RF wishes the Connecticut legislators well in their efforts to create a more fair and (yes!) reasonable library digital content experience.