![]() ![]() By imposing licensing mandates with price controls and the ability to dictate terms, these states would create a patchwork of what are known as “compulsory licenses” in copyright law. But these claims fall apart under closer scrutiny.ĭistortion and rhetoric aside, these bills represent a fundamental attack on the U.S. The siren call for more access to e-books through libraries gives these arguments populist appeal, and libraries understandably engender sympathies from policymakers. 5 Jonathan Band, American Library Association, Response to Statement of the Association of American Publishers Concerning Rhode Island House Bill 6426, May 17, 2021. and unfair dealing in their e-book licensing practices. They accuse publishers of engaging in “predatory pricing,” 3 Morgan Miller, Maryland Library Association, Testimony in support of HB518 – Public Libraries – Electronic Book Licenses – Access, House Ways and Means Committee, Friday, Febru“price gouging,” 4 Library Futures, Letter supporting Rhode Island H. ![]() 6246, ApNew York Library Association, letter supporting NY S.2890B/A5837B, 2021. ![]() 2 Kathleen Dumais, bill sponsor, Testimony in support of Maryland House Bill 518 – Public Libraries – Electronic Book Licenses – Access, FebruLibrary Futures, Letter supporting Rhode Island H. Proponents of these bills argue that legislation is needed to ensure “equitable access” to e-books, and they assert that this access is impeded by allegedly restrictive licensing terms and high prices. In addition to mandating licenses, these laws also: (1) require copyright owners to provide licenses that allow for digital library lending beginning the same day the works are first released, thus outlawing the longstanding distribution model of “windowing” with staggered release of works in different formats and in different outlets (2) prohibit any limitations on the number of licenses offered to libraries by copyright owners and (3) mandate that licenses be made on “reasonable terms”- an undefined term that effectively authorizes a state to impose price controls and other terms in licenses and to sue copyright owners for noncompliance with these mandates. ![]() In June of 2022, a federal court in Maryland struck down the law and issued a declaratory judgment finding that “the Maryland Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable” because it “conflicts with and is preempted by the Copyright Act.” In New York, copycat legislation was vetoed by the Governor, who concluded that “ecause the provisions of this bill are preempted by federal copyright law, I cannot support this bill.” Similar legislation was introduced in 2022 in Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, and in 2023 in Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. 1 Such legislation has been enacted in Maryland and took effect on January 1, 2022. Constitution and its designation of Congress as the body responsible for securing to authors their exclusive rights.īeginning in 2021, states across the country introduced or enacted legislation forcing publishers, authors, and other copyright owners to license to libraries certain copyrighted works-from e-books and other digital texts to audiobooks-for digital lending. The authors of this paper assert that the proposed compulsory licensing by the states threatens the well-founded principle of a uniform federal copyright law established by the U.S. Beginning in 2021, states across the country introduced or enacted legislation forcing publishers, authors, and other copyright owners to license to libraries certain copyrighted works-from e-books and other digital texts to audiobooks-for digital lending. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |