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.
