Ginny Monk from the CTMirror is reporting that the Connecticut legislators have passed the much-desired (by library patrons and librarians, anyway) ebook bill. It has yet to be signed by Governor Lamont, put enactment seems likely.
The bill does not force publishers to set particular prices or even stipulate exactly what license terms should be. It simply says that libraries may not enter into a license agreement that “precludes, limits or restricts the library from performing customary operational or lending functions.” ILL, preservation copies and the ability to share freely the terms of license agreements entered into with other libraries are protected. A somewhat unusual aspect is a trigger provision that prevents the law from taking effect unless another state passes a similar law; that state, when combined with CT’s population of 3.675, needs to begin teh demographic total to 10 million. So, it will not take effect immediately no matter what. This circumstance should not dampen enthusiasm. The trigger was thought necessary to ensure passage. It means that Connecticut will likely not be left out alone, unless of course some of the large publishers (others generally already offer licenses that would be considered fair) preemptively decide not to license in the state—an unlikely scenario.
Librarians from Connecticut tell RF that they are confident that the bill will withstand the inevitable legal challenge brought by publishing lobbyists. Copyright doesn’t enter into the matter at all. Whether that challenge will come now or after a trigger event remains to be seen. They also say that they want a first: the large publishers to come to them to discuss what license terms would be acceptable. I hope rather than expect that the publishers will oblige.
The bill was not without opposition. At least five amendments were offered, not to strengthen the bill but to make it untenable, including the usual canard about pornography in libraries. Many of the arguments, as quoted by Monk, are not worth rebutting but a few of the objections should (again) but called out as patently false.
“‘We’re going to force you, we’re going to coerce you into lowering your prices,’” said Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco, R-Wolcott, a ranking member on the GAE committee. Apparently the Republican Party in Connecticut has jettisoned the idea of fiscal responsibility. Apparently libraries should pay in amounts totally out of line with print equivalents under terms that make the deals even worse so that publishers can line up at the public trough. How is that a responsible use of tax payer money?
“Umair Kazi, director of policy and advocacy at The Authors Guild, submitted testimony opposing the bill, saying it could harm Connecticut authors and access to books. “‘We fear that by prohibiting Connecticut libraries from entering into licenses that contain these common terms that the legislature will impact the availability of books in Connecticut libraries,’” Kazi said in written testimony. “‘Publishers will likely not concede to changing the terms and their business model, and as a consequence, Connecticut libraries would not be able to license many new books or renew existing license for what could be a substantial portion of their catalogue’.”
Publishers may well not concede—we’ll deal with that in a minute—but this argument is specious. With fair terms, libraries will not spend less. We may even spend more. Different authors will benefit, including new and mid-list authors because we will be able to diversify our collections more. The publishers, and more authors, will still get paid. I doubt Mr. Stephen King and Mr. John Grisham lie awake at night worried about the loss of library ebook sales. But what about authors looking for a chance? The follow-up argument, that libraries will “cannibalize” digital sales, is nonsensical. We buy many, many more print books than digital at far lower prices, and that doesn’t seem to be putting the big publishers out of business. They still market heavily though libraries. If we’re such money leeches, why do they take advantage of how we promote reading?
So, what if big publishers, whether they fail in legal challenge or don’t bring one, simply pull out of Connecticut? It doesn’t seem likely, though they (and the many who wish to create a license economy in which consumers own nothing and user must pay and pay and pay) will certainly bluster about how unfair and unconstitutional the law is and put pressure on the governor not to sign, with threats of lawsuits. They will look at the cost of pulling out and know they will still profit. If they do pull out, well, first, many other publishers will not. We thank the many who already give us fair terms for works that are often high interest and high quality. It could be a great thing for many writers. But here, gentle reader, is where you come in. If the publishers in essence boycott Connecticut, what will you do? Will you stand up for our readers and fiscal responsibility?
We can make a difference.
Remember Macmillan in 2019.
For now, RF congratulates the librarians and legislators of Connecticut. Every “yes” vote is wonderful and he library community is grateful, but special thanks are perhaps due to the bill’s champion, Rep. Matt Blumenthal. Well done, all! Governor Lamont, lot of monied entities are going to put pressure on you. The residents of Connecticut are trusting you. Thanks all! Now, who’s next? Let’s pull that trigger.
