Sen. Wyden and Rep. Eschoo Stand Up For Readers

After seeing Sen. Tillis carry water for the Association of American Publishers (AAP), it is bracing to see Sen. Wyden (D—Oregon) and Rep. Ashoo (D-California) asking some questions about publisher library ebook practices for the benefit of library readers.

As reported by Andrew Albanese’s PW piece “Wyden, Eshoo Question Big Five Publishers Over Their Library E-book Practices,” these elected officials have asked questions that could reveal a huge discrepancy in what libraries pay for print vs. digital and suggest that digital prices are inflated and lending terms burdensome:

In their letter to the publishers the lawmakers reference “the exorbitant costs and burdensome restrictions” that they say “are draining resources from many local libraries,” and “forcing [libraries] to make difficult choices to try and provide a consistent level of service” to their patrons.

“E-books play a critical role in ensuring that libraries can fulfill their mission of providing broad and equitable access to information for all Americans, and it is imperative that libraries can continue their traditional lending functions as technology advances,” the letter states.

The letter requests responses from each of the publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster) by October 7.

Albanese’s piece has a link to the many questions asked; it is worth a detailed read.

Let’s start by giving credit where credit is due. Not all the questions will (if answered at all!) elicit embarrassing responses. During the pandemic, several of the publishers (thank you, PRH and Macmillan) have eased terms for sharing texts in online story times. PRH adopted multiple license models and some price reductions that have been helpful—RF hopes these terms will continue! HarperCollins may be able to respond truthfully that many of its ebook terms are proportionate to print. That said, I wouldn’t want to be the CEO responding truthfully to many of the questions, since about all I could say is “My job is to maximize profit and ebook licensing is one way I do that.“

Will Sen. Wyden and Rep. Eschoo will get anything other than perfunctory responses? As many may recall, Rep. Jayapal (D-Washington) sent a letter to Macmillan back in the embargo/boycott days, asking about licensing practices, and got her questions mostly ignored. It could very well happen again. The companies could claim (rightfully in some cases—questions #1 and #8 a, b, and f might be difficult to report fully since the publishers may not know all library print sales and are not the direct library customers in digital) that they don’t have all the answers and in any case are simply good partners with libraries, which are an important part of the publishing enterprise, yadda yadda. We’ll see if companies with big international owners feel safe playing by their own rules and politely ignoring what they don’t wish to talk about.

If responses are given, they should be released so librarians can fact-check and comment. There are ways to spin anything. Publishers could say, for example, they make less money on a 2 year library ebook lease than selling to 52 consumers. It would be true. But it ignores the comparison to print costs for libraries and the needs of library users, not to mention the balance between copyright holder and readers that copyright laws intend to provide.

No matter what, this development is good for library readers. For years, we have said most of the Big 5 and many academic publishers terms are unfair. We have documented how the terms disadvantage readers and prevent us from developing robust and sustainable digital collections. We have asked for change. The publishers have largely ignored our requests, knowing we have no recourse, likely hoping covertly (and in some cases openly stating the desire) to expand consumer sales at the expense of the library market. Any light cast on publishers’ library ebook practices is welcome, and, answered or not, these questions cast cold light on those practices. RF thanks Sen. Wyden and Rep. Eshoo for their stand. We now have a law at the state level, with more states likely to follow, that calls for “reasonable terms.” These laws alone are not enough to create lasting change. Libraries should welcome these questions and hope they are a start of federal action. Congressional hearings would not be ignored, even if the questions are. It is time for still more questions, for an assessment of what is "reasonable," and for a reconsideration of copyright/licensing through libraries to rebalance the need to know against profit.

Is there enough political will to go beyond these questions and take federal legislative action? Libraries and their readers are pitted against monied interests. It will be an uphill battle, but we need to follow up with advocacy. The AAP will not be able as disrespectful to lawmakers as they are to libraries, but they will be quick to say the market is fair and put out bogus claims without in-depth facts. The answer to the questions asked of the publishers yesterday will show otherwise. Let us hope this is the beginning of the action, but we should show support and do more than hope. We call on all senators and representatives to stand up for readers.

Of course, the publishers could—individually, of course!— simply decide that rather than laws, a new a business paradigm is needed and work with libraries to redefine terms so that digital and print revenues were proportionate and “reasonable.”

In the meantime, we salute the publishers that do work with libraries on such terms and vow continued advocacy.

Mellon Foundation Supports Developing CDL Standards

The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) has received a grant of “$125,000 from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to support the development of a consensus framework for implementing controlled digital lending (CDL) of book content by libraries, which has been approved by NISO members as a new initiative.”

"We are very grateful for the support from The Mellon Foundation in support of this work to help uptake of CDL in all kinds of libraries, whether or not they are well-resourced," said Todd Carpenter, Executive Director of NISO. "With the support of contributors in our working group, this effort will consolidate the range of approaches currently being deployed, thereby supporting faster and cheaper deployment of CDL in institutions. It will also serve as a catalyst that identifies and spurs the advancement of beneficial changes to existing specifications, the development of new tools, or potential infrastructure that may be needed. This proposed consensus framework aims to serve both academic and public libraries, as well as special libraries and archives."

The Working Group’s scope will include refining existing models that describe the similarities and differences between CDL and traditional circulation and ILL; developing use cases for CDL that take into account all libraries who may adopt it; identifying gaps in the understanding of CDL applications; developing model processes for library staff; describing systems interoperability requirements; and identifying changes needed to existing library protocols and standards. Importantly, lessons learned from patron and staff experiences from the range of current implementations will be incorporated into the working group process to ensure that usability and accessibility is addressed in the output.

RF salutes this development. Standards for sharing are important and this development further solidifies the commitment of libraries of all types to this important (and legal) way of sharing content. It begins to look as if the still-to-be-litigated AAP/publisher suit against the Internet Archive will be very far from the last word on the application/adoption of CDL. Oh well, I guess ya can’t sue ‘em all.

BLC Adopts CDL for Interlibrary Loan

Chris Freeland of the Internet Archive has shared the news that the Boston Library Consortium (BCL) has adopted Controlled Digital Lending for interlibrary Loan. In a statement, BCL announced that CDL will be used “among its interested member libraries, under a new plan approved by its Board of Directors at their August 2021 meeting. In this resource sharing model, items that traditionally would be loaned physically could instead be digitized and lent digitally under controlled conditions.”

BCL affirmed that CDL “enables libraries to lend legally acquired materials in a digital format under conditions that emulate physical lending. With CDL, libraries limit the total number of copies circulating in any format to the number of physical copies they own, maintain regular lending period limits, and utilize digital rights management to prevent copying and redistribution.”

BVL has also provided a “a new public report, “Consortial CDL: Implementing Controlled Digital Lending as a Mechanism for Interlibrary Loan,” so that other libraries and consortia can benefit from the BLC’s work.”

ReadersFirst salutes BCL for joining other academic libraries in using CDL, It offers many advantages, certainly including fast and safe delivery of materials, increasingly the likelihood that rarer physical materials that might never be loaned through the post will be shared. Importantly, another group has made a strong statement that CDL is legal, acceptable, and valuable.

ReadersFirst encourages all libraries to review and sign the Statement on Controlled Digital Lending. We face many obstacles to begin able to create rich, lasting, and affordable digital collections. Relying on and digitally sharing our print collections, many titles of which are not digitized, is a powerful equalizer for half of the copyright equation: those with a need to know.

The Copyright Office Responds

As noted by Andrew Albanese in “Copyright Office Weighs in on Maryland Library E-book Law,” the Office has responded to Sen. Tillis’ request to review the Maryland Law.

The decision is that federal copyright law “probably” would preempt the Maryland law, but opinion is notable for being tentative and never concluding anything definitively.

The matter is complicated and the article should be read. It is worth nothing, however, that an legitimate argument exists for the other side. It should also be consulted. https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/004/4769-1.pdf RF thanks Jonathan Band for making cogent points.

We offer a few thoughts:

If Sen. Tillis and the AAP were hoping for a “slam dunk,” they have to be disappointed. This is no slam dunk. The footnote to the opinion is particularly telling: “It is worth noting that both Orson and Wilkinson discussed forced commercial exploitations of copyrighted works; the state legislation at issue seeks to require licensing of works to libraries, which, while arguably a commercial transaction, ultimately serves a non-commercial goal of furthering the traditional mission of public libraries to provide free access to materials for their communities. It is unclear whether this would be a significant factor for a court considering the question of federal conflict preemption. Precisely! We argue that the state has an overwhelming interest in protecting its residents’ ability to see content in libraries for a non-commercial purpose. Libraries’ mission certainly should be a significant factor.

The need for a review of federal copyright law as it applies to library licensing of materials is clear. Perlmutter says “One of the objectives of the Copyright Act is to promote the dissemination of creative works, which the Act does by, among other things, creating “a balance between the artist’s right to control the work during the term of the copyright protection and the public’s need for access to creative works.” The AAP can claim all it wants about the “healthy, robust, and ever-evolving noncommercial market channel” of the library ebook market, but the MLA statement on reasonable terms clearly establishes how libraries in many cases pay far more for digital than for analog, hindering our ability to meet demand at a time when digital has never been more needed. Any cost analysis by any front-line librarian will show the same, as do any number of published studies. We again thank the publishers who do offer a print-equivalent cost in overall license terms, but the AAP calling fair the terms that many publishers foist on libraries, knowing we have no choice if we wish to meet demand, is ludicrous.

So about that AAP statement: “ Accordingly, AAP remains deeply troubled by ongoing, coordinated lobbying efforts that seek to dictate and devalue the distribution and pricing of books in what is clearly a healthy, robust, and ever-evolving noncommercial market channel. Such efforts are antithetical to our democracy, which depends upon a vibrant private sector publishing industry that is incentivized to create and distribute original works of authorship to the public..” This overheated nonsense is risible. The MLA and the state of Maryland legislators—every single one of whom voted for the law—are not lobbyists. You have the unmitigated crust to speak of democracy? Does democracy exist only for those with a credit card?

Bottom line:

• It doesn't matter what the AAP, Sen. Tillis, or even the Copyright Office say. The Maryland law stands. Any one who wants to challenge it will have to go to court. Who knows, the outcome might be to validate our law or eventually lead to a reassessment of copyright. In any case, it won’t be good “optics” to sue a state to do down library readers.

• The Copyright Office all but undermines its own stand in its footnote. The whole point for us is that we are non-commercial and not doing anything that should be preempted. Library use SHOULD matter.

• We have legal points on our side too--only litigation would solve the question

• This whole effort is aimed at chilling passage of the New York law and to stop efforts in other states. New York's has been passed and must be presented to the governor before January. We'll have to see if a new governor wants to veto a law with 100% "yes" votes. RF encourages other states to act. You have a financial as well as a moral stake: public funds provide library digital content.

• Sen. Tillis (R, NC), we respectfully invite you to speak with librarians from any number of excellent NC systems and to the library readers of your state. You might well find they agree with the Maryland law more than with a D.C. lobbying outfit.

Sen. Tillis, The Copyright Office, and Continued Library Advocacy

As noted by Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly in “Senator Wants Copyright Office to Weigh in on Maryland Library E-book Law,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R, NC) of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee has sent a letter to the U.S. Copyright Office asking for a review of the Maryland law scheduled to take effect on 1/1/22.

Albanese’s article is well-worth a read but to summarize: Tillis’ letter echoes concerns previously express by the AAP [so closely that RF opines it cannot be a coincidence] that the Maryland law is unconstitutional, that the state is encroaching on federal domain, that the Copyright Office should "clarify if federal preemption applies," but that letters like this are not uncommon, unlikely to affect the Maryland law even if the Copyright Office issues a negative statement, and that the letter is an effort to chill activities in other states, including New York where a bill has been passed in the legislature but is awaiting signature.

RF agrees with the contention of Jonathan Band in the article that the Tillis letter and AAP claims are inaccurate. The letter says among other things that the state’s “compulsory license” removes rights from the copyright holder. Not so. The law respects the license offered for works by the publishers and does not dictate terms. We agree that this is likely an attempt to chill other state legislation. Our Working Group has sent the following letter to librarians in 8 states who have expressed some level of interest in legislation. In some cases, bills are awaiting introduction, while in others the idea is just germinating. We encourage stakeholders in other states to consider moving forward. A patchwork of legislation may bring the matter into federal legislation. In the meantime, library stakeholders should advocate for “print equivalent” digital licensing terms. We salute publishers who already offer such terms and ask, without them how will we ever be able to offer in digital the richness and deep collections we can offer in print?

Dear Colleagues:

We are emailing because you have expressed interest in advocacy for an eBook law in your state like Maryland’s, enabling libraries to license any eBooks or eAudiobooks made available to individuals at reasonable cost. We learned last week that Sen. Thom Tillis, ranking member on the Senate Intellectual Property subcommittee, believes the Maryland law to be unconstitutional and has requested the Copyright Office to publish an opinion intended overtly to discourage you from seeking legislative solutions to eBook access in your state.

Sen. Tillis’ letter makes arguments similar to the talking points used by the lobbying organization Association of American Publishers (AAP), so we believe that’s where the interest originates. Rather than challenge the legislation directly in court, AAP appears to be trying to enlist the Copyright Office to chill new state efforts to protect access to eBooks by raising the raise the specter of unconstitutionality. The Maryland and New York legislatures rejected the assertion that the ebook legislation is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act and passed the legislation; it will be law in Maryland on 1/1/22. If you are interested in details, we can gather that information for you.

Ultimately, we do hope to achieve a federal-level solution to protect the rights copyright law extends to libraries, allowing us to obtain digital materials at reasonable prices without constraint and create archival copies, etc. But we believe that the path to a national solution begins with precedents at the state level: demonstrating need and modeling solutions. In brief, we hope this information will galvanize your effort to pass a law in your state that protects access to eBooks.

Please share this with letter with any interested parties in your state.

PBS Point-of-View Series Offers Libraries Some Free Programming Opportunities

From a Press Release from PBS:

POV (a cinema term for “point of view”) is America’s longest-running nonfiction series.

Since 1988, POV has presented films on PBS that capture the full spectrum of the human experience, with a long commitment to centering women and people of color in front of, and behind, the camera.

 Every season, we attract an average of 1-2 million viewers per program and reach a younger, more diverse audience than other PBS series. In 2019, nearly half of our viewers lived in households with incomes under $40,000.

Through our programs, we support bold, independent storytellers who reflect the public we serve. This season, nearly two-thirds of our programs are directed by filmmakers of color and over 80% are by women.

This season, we are pleased to be the broadcast home of films like:

The Neutral Ground 

The Neutral Ground documents New Orleans’ fight over monuments and America’s troubled romance with

the Lost Cause. In 2015, director CJ Hunt was filming the New Orleans City Council’s vote to remove four

confederate monuments. But when that removal is halted by death threats, CJ sets out to understand why

Pier Kids

On the Christopher Street Pier in New York City, homeless queer and trans youth of color forge friendships

and chosen families, withstanding tremendous amounts of abuse while working to carve out autonomy in

their lives. With intimate access to these fearless young people, Pier Kids highlights the precarity and

resilience of a community many choose to ignore.

 Fruits of Labor

Ashley, a Mexican-American teenager living in an agricultural town in the central coast of California,

dreams of graduating high school and going to college. But when ICE raids threaten her family, Ashley is

forced to become the breadwinner, working days in the strawberry fields and nights at a food processing

company.

Watch an exclusive preview of the POV Season 34 HERE (password: povseason34!). 

Beyond the broadcast, we work with a network of over 13,000 partners including libraries, museums and classroom educators. We spark community conversation by producing public resources and hundreds of nationwide events that extend the reach of our films and move our impact work forward.  

 Given that we are still navigating a public health crisis, we are encouraging partnered community organizations and stations to reimagine community screening events through virtual platforms like OVEE and ZOOM and to creatively shift towards safe outdoor social distancing approaches that can foster community building.

Join the POV Community Network -- a free digital film lending library for educators, nonprofits, librarians, PBS Stations, and other engaged community members to host free community and educational screening events of POV films. Partners can host online screenings to watch films together through Zoom and use lesson plans, discussion guides and reading lists to facilitate conversation about POV films. 

POV Engage provides free access and training to organize a virtual or in person film screening in your community or classroom. How do you sign up?

Create a free account to join the Community Network and register your screening event today!

PW Asks: Can Maryland's New E-book Law Help Change the Marketplace?

Publishers Weekly’s Andrew Albanese has written an informative overview of a statement recently released by the Maryland Library Association (MLA) setting out one interpretation of Maryland’s ebook legislation. [Disclosure: the article contains statements from and (yukk!) a photo of me. Obviously I am not an impartial party.]

The article, which is a must-read for anyone interested in the library digital content market, sets out the MLA contention that that simply making digital content available is not enough to be in full compliance with the law. The statement allows for a wide variety of models, but the fundamental idea is that digital content should, in a combination of all terms including license duration and cost, approximate the cost for analog, particularly print cost. The MLA argues that what has been “reasonable” for hundreds of years in print is a good guide to what digital should cost.

Why should digital cost so much more? It can’t be because digital never expires when licenses so often build in an expiration. To quote my RF colleague Carmi Parker, “Would anyone say it was ‘reasonable’ if publishers said print books should cost libraries $60 a copy and those books must be weeded from the collection in two years.” Yes, I know the difference between license and copyright. What I dispute is that digital should so often be so much higher overall. Protections against illegal distribution are in place. The Maryland law stipulates that Maryland Libraries will conscientiously respect license requirements. Arguments about “friction” are vacuous. Library digital waiting lists are often so long, unless the items are offered on the often budget busting pay-per-use model, that any talk of friction are laughable. Publishers may have no single greater prod for customers to by than the library waiting list.

The article mentions AAP opposition to the Maryland law: “we question the strategy of library lobbyists, who are sophisticated actors in Washington, in pushing unconstitutional legislation and a storyline that is at odds with both the operation of the law and market facts.” I call BS. Not being an attorney, I won’t comment on the legal aspects, though one can find the AAP statements refuted here. But market facts? That publishers can and often do charge on average many times higher for digital than for print is certainly a market fact. Libraries can pay, indeed must pay if we want access, but that doesn’t make the prices fair. And “sophisticated actors in Washington”—that’s especially rich coming from a Washington lobbying firm. This assertion is untrue. The MLA statement was written and edited by Maryland librarians. It was approved by the MLA. It is a librarian initiative. We’re not sophisticated actors in Washington. We’re librarians, and proud of it. Maybe its easier to attack make-believe Washington actors, but AAP, address your concerns where they belong. Frankly, though, the AAP’s statements have no more validity than this utter falsehood.

The MLA invites conversation with all publishers individually while thanking the many who already offer print equivalent on average. If you don’t want to talk with us, at least plan on talking with the ALA, or COSLA, or ULC, or any number of stakeholders. One thing seems clear: Maryland’s will not be the last legislation of its kind.

CDL: A Debate

Thanks to the Internet Archive’s Chris Freeland for an event alert:

As part of its annual Copyright and Trademark Symposium, BYU is hosting a debate about Controlled Digital Lending. Tune in to hear librarian and CDL white paper author Dave Hansen (Duke University) debate the merits of CDL with legal fellow Devlin Hartline (Hudson Institute). There will be a vote at the end of the session to see which presenter has the most persuasive argument.

The Symposium starts at 11am ET; the debate is at 12pm ET. Registration is free.
August 19 @ 9am PT / 12pm ET - Register now

It should be interesting!

An NZ View on CDL

The National Library of New Zealand has donated 600,000 books to the Internet Archive to digitize and share internationally through controlled digital lending. Representatives of the library are delighted, but there had been pushback, including the usual charge of piracy.

It is refreshing, then, to see copyright lawyer Michael Wolfe pen a considered rebuttal:

In the surprisingly high-stakes, high-emotion world of copyright law and policy, the word “piracy” is a trusty old standby — it’s the allegation copyright owner interests lob at any use of their works not subject to total owner control. “Alleged infringement” or “legally permissible but sternly disapproved of by rights-holders” just don’t convey the same sense of urgency or alarm.

Without a doubt, rights-holders are upset at the Internet Archive and are, in fact, suing the organisation in the United States. On its own, the existence of a lawsuit doesn’t tell us much — litigation is a way of life in America, and copyright owners there have a long history of overestimating their legal rights and losing their biggest cases (just ask Oracle, or the Authors Guild, or Universal Studios). Maybe it’s prudent, then, to take a look at the substance of what the lawsuit is about

With that in mind, here is the controversial thing this library, the Internet Archive, is doing: they’re lending books.

In effect, libraries are choosing controlled digital lending to maintain the traditional library model in a world that’s diminishing it. In so doing, libraries are vastly expanding who can read what books and the ways in which they can read them. For many of us, that means getting little nice-to-have features, like being able to do a full text search on a book we’re reading. For others, like those with disabilities that prevent their reading print books, or for those who live far from physical libraries, it’s a complete game changer in access to the written word. Sounds terrible to you? Odds are good that you’re a publisher.

If this whole debate gives you strong feelings favouring either side, I hope you’ll agree that it surfaces important questions that demand to be taken seriously, not glibly. They’re also questions that demand democratic engagement here in New Zealand. The future of our libraries does not hinge on the outcome of an American court case. We write and enforce our own copyright laws, and as luck would have it, they’re currently up for review. If there’s a blessing buried anywhere in this whole kerfuffle, it’s the prospect that it might provide an opportunity to get the law on the books working properly for our books.

Hear hear! The above is but a snippet—there is much more in the article of solid good sense and it is well worth a read. And CDL and these questions demand democratic engagement here in the USA too. Copyright is supposed to balance the needs of rightsholders with the need to share knowledge. Digital is becoming unsustainable—and in the case of streaming only, often impossible—for libraries. It is past time to rebalance these competing needs.

An MLA Statement on "Reasonable Terms"

As noted by the Authors Alliance in a well-articulated recent blog post, libraries and state legislations have been making many efforts recently to address the issue of the availability and license terms of digital content in libraries. Their post summarizes many initiatives in one convenient place and is worth a read, especially for its take on how libraries sharing content can help authors. The post was updated yesterday with a link to new content from the Maryland Library Association (MLA), which yesterday posted a press release and a statement defining what is meant by “reasonable terms” in the Maryland legislation’s recently passed digital content bill.

I have described that legislation as “mild.” While I wish I were more articulate when talking with the members of the media and had made the point more compellingly, I’ll stand by the tenor of that description. The bill does not undermine the existing relationship between libraries and publishers. It simply wishes in part to prevent embargoes. It does not apply to all types of library—public, school, academic (in retrospect, I wish we would have used for that, as other legislation now has!). It doesn’t provide for libraries being able to make digital copies for preservation purposes. It doesn’t establish some sort of digital right of first sale and exemption from licensing for libraries, allowing digital titles to be shared as print materials are. It doesn’t put into law an official position that controlled digital lending is legal. It doesn’t begin to address the growing issue of how much content, especially video, is becoming streaming only, leaving library users out. It is, however, what we thought we could pass and provides a law guaranteeing library readers’ access to ebooks and audiobooks under terms that are “reasonable” for libraries.

So, what is “reasonable”? [Disclaimer—I helped to write the statement]. The statement went through many drafts. It sticks closely to an interpretation of what the legislators meant. It is careful about being an invitation to publishers individually to talk with library stakeholders rather than trying to set specific pricing or other license terms. We are well aware that publishers cannot engage in group dialog and must avoid even a hint of unfair pricing negotiations. It points to the long tradition of libraries, their readers, publishers, and authors all benefitting from materials being sold and circulated under copyright. Carmi Parker and I have previously covered this reasoning in an InfoToday article. In general, we think that circulating digital materials in libraries should be roughly equivalent (in overall cost and duration of titles) to circulating physical materials. If that balance between all competing rights had been fair in physical materials for hundreds of years, why is it not a good template for digital, even though digital materials might (at least under the Maryland law) continue to circulate under license and not copyright?

The good thing about the statement is that it encourages a wide range of possible models as “reasonable.” Metered access by circ (and please not by time, if possible)? Fine, give us roughly the price of physical materials. Worried about long-term costs of perpetual access? Okay, charge a higher price—but not hundreds of $$. Perpetual access and simultaneous access to a title by many, such as a classroom license? Something can be figured out, but it had better not be individual licenses at $30 per single use. A “community reads” title for a large city with unlimited simultaneous access might get thousands of downloads and be “reasonable” at thousands of $$. The key is libraries should be getting roughly the “bang per book” (hardy har—rimshot!) on average in digital that we get from physical. “How ‘reasonable’ would it be,” asks my RF Working Group colleague Carmi Parker, if a publisher “suddenly told libraries that the prices on their hardbacks were jumping from $20 to $60 and that all copies must be removed from the shelves and repurchased every 2 years?” Other than fostering access to titles and preventing embargoes, the law’s other main thrust is to encourage better terms for libraries. A return roughly equivalent to what comes from print or other physical media is “reasonable” for ebooks and digital audiobooks.

All that said, I hasten to point out that many publishers already offer terms that would be “reasonable” under the MLA statement. HarperCollins offering classics at (say) $12-14 for a 26 circ license is fair. Many medium and smaller publishers are making content available perpetually at lower prices. Some publishers are working with the Internet Archive to sell, not license, content in EPUB. Those publishers are encouraged to work with other platforms so many libraries might take advantage. There’s no question that digital has been a disrupter for publishers, authors, and libraries. We in libraries feel that in many cases—by no means all!—the delicate balance between rights holder and reader has now tilted too far away from readers. We seek access to content in ways that will be sustainable for libraries, for the benefit of our readers—and authors and publishers. The Maryland legislation is one step forward.