Important Op-Ed from Connecticut Legislators

In “Publishers have libraries in a bind. We’ve got a novel solution,“ state representatives (and bill sponsors) Matt Blumenthal and Eleni Kavros DeGraw clearly set out the need for fair ebook laws.

The whole article is worth a read, but let’s do a summary to appreciate their understanding of the issues.

“[T]the “Big 5” publishers that own more than 80 percent of the book market are trying to balance their books on our libraries’ backs. . . . But with [Big 5] e-books, you don’t own the book — you own a contract. And reading the publishers’ fine print for library contracts would make your eyes pop out of your head.” Yes. Licenses aren’t ipso facto bad, but all too often the devil in the ebooks details is quite real.

The biggest issue is of course the cost: ”Other e-books are even more expensive. You can buy David Kahn’s “The Codebreakers” on Amazon for $59.99. The library price for a single copy: $239.99 for two years. For 20? A staggering $2,399.90.”

But other problems are enumerated, and here the authors extend their critique beyond the Big 5 to take on some academic publishers:

“E-book licenses also bar libraries from lending e-books through their interlibrary loan systems. They restrict how many copies of an e-book a library can obtain. They prohibit academic libraries from keeping nonpublic preservation copies for their records. And perhaps most perversely, they require libraries to keep the terms of their agreements secret, preventing them from shopping around — or banding together — to negotiate a better deal on behalf of their patrons and the taxpayers. These restrictions don’t just waste taxpayer dollars: they interfere with libraries’ core mission by preventing them from building catalogs of popular authors, handcuffing their lending activities, and depriving the public of access to books.”

Yes! “Imagine if a town repaved a road, and the road disappeared after 26 cars drove over it. If someone asked us to authorize such a wasteful expenditure of public resources, we’d throw the book at them.”

They argue that librarians often feel obligated to get these expensive titles due to demand, are restricted from shopping around, and are indeed in a bind. They have put forward two bills to help: H.B. 5312 and S.B. 148.

They go on to demolish opposing arguments:

• That authors won’t be paid fairly—in fact, libraries will still pay fair prices and if anything, offer more money in digital to more authors.

• That the bills are pre-empted by federal copyright. That may have been true of an earlier Maryland law, but we’ve learned for that one. Current library bills are based on state procurement and consumer protection. The bills “impose no obligation on publishers whatsoever.” The publishers can either deal fairly or not deal at all—the choice is up to them.

The piece ends with a call for Connecticut residents to support the bills so that they “can be inscribed in our law books and help our libraries provide more titles on fairer terms. That would be a win in everybody’s book.”

RF hopes that Connecticut will answer the call and extends a huge thank you to these legislators for their support of libraries. So many legislators understand that some of the larger publishers are taking advantage of licensing law to deny fair terms to libraries, even though copyright has created a balance that has allowed publishers, libraries, and readers to fair well and “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

Go Connecticut! And may many other states follow.