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.