Category Archives: oa.aap

Maybe Publishers Should “Love” Libraries a Little Less? — As in guillotine…

Posted on by
Reply

“And now, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) is backing an anti-library coalition with other association partners, even pulling in other media industries in, too?

The initial members of the Protect the Creative Economy Coalition include the American Booksellers Association, Authors Guild, Association of American Publishers, National Music Publishers Association, News Media Alliance, and the Independent Book Publishers Association, as well as the Copyright Alliance.

If the American Library Association had a spine and any real power, they’d be pushing back hard against this coalition, starting with not allowing any participating publishers to exhibit this summer at their Annual Conference, and making all of their books ineligible for awards.

That definitely won’t happen, of course, so once again, individual librarians will be left to fend for themselves, and publishers will continue to show their “love” for libraries by abusing them in court and whisper networks, while gaslighting them everywhere else.”

Publishers have long hated libraries; here’s the history, and the next attack – Walled Culture

Posted on by
Reply

“The most recent example in “The Publisher Playbook” of companies doing their utmost to limit what libraries can make available is the terrible lawsuit against the Open Library for daring to increase access to books during the Covid pandemic. Today, 20 March 2023, the Southern District Court of New York will be hearing the oral arguments in this important case.

The penultimate example of the new research is litigation against US state legislation promoting fair and equitable ebook access. Walled Culture wrote about this back in December 2021, when US publishers sued to stop a Maryland law that would require publishers to license ebooks on “reasonable terms”. Hardly unreasonable, you might have thought, but the publishers disagreed, sued – and unfortunately won….

The model language has been introduced in bills in two states, Massachusetts and Hawaii, but more are in the works, apparently. Of course, publishers are already trying to paint this approach as “unconstitutional”, and they will doubtless challenge proposed laws in the courts. And so the battle between libraries and the publishing industry continues….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

With New Model Language, Library E-book Bills Are Back

Posted on by
Reply

“It was just over a year ago that a federal judge in Maryland struck down the state’s groundbreaking library e-book law. But with the 2023 legislative year underway, library advocates are back with new model legislation they say can help ensure “fair and equitable licensing terms in e-book contracts for libraries” while avoiding the thorny copyright issue that doomed Maryland’s law.

The revised language, developed with support from nascent library advocacy group Library Futures, takes a “regulate” rather than “mandate” approach. In other words, unlike Maryland’s law, which would have required publishers to offer license agreements to libraries “on reasonable terms” for digital books that were available to consumers, the new legislative language instead focuses regulating the terms of agreements. Key to the revised bill’s effectiveness is language that would render unenforceable any license term that “precludes, limits, or restricts” libraries from performing their traditional, core mission….”

Oral Argument Set in Internet Archive Copyright Case

Posted on by
Reply

“Months after a final round of reply briefs was filed, a federal judge is now ready to hear oral arguments for summary judgment in a closely watched copyright case filed by four major publishers against the Internet Archive over its program to scan and lend library books.

In a brief order filed late last week, Judge John G. Koeltl set March 20 at 1 p.m. to hear arguments, which will be heard over the phone rather than in a Manhattan courtroom. 

The order ends months of waiting. The parties filed their initial cross motions for summary judgment on July 7, 2022, with each side asking the court to decide the case in their favor ahead of trial. A final round of reply briefs for summary judgment was filed on October 7, 2022. And it has been more than two years since four major publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House, organized by the Association of American Publishers—first filed its copyright infringement lawsuit, alleging that the Internet Archive’s controversial program to scan and lend books under an untested legal theory known as “controlled digital lending” is little more than a massive piracy operation “masquerading as a not-for-profit library.”

In their third and final reply brief, attorneys for the plaintiff publishers say the “undisputed facts and settled law” lead to the “inexorable conclusion” that IA’s scanning and lending of library books is copyright infringement on a massive scale….”

Oral Argument Set in Internet Archive Copyright Case

Posted on by
Reply

“Months after a final round of reply briefs was filed, a federal judge is now ready to hear oral arguments for summary judgment in a closely watched copyright case filed by four major publishers against the Internet Archive over its program to scan and lend library books.

In a brief order filed late last week, Judge John G. Koeltl set March 20 at 1 p.m. to hear arguments, which will be heard over the phone rather than in a Manhattan courtroom. 

The order ends months of waiting. The parties filed their initial cross motions for summary judgment on July 7, 2022, with each side asking the court to decide the case in their favor ahead of trial. A final round of reply briefs for summary judgment was filed on October 7, 2022. And it has been more than two years since four major publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House, organized by the Association of American Publishers—first filed its copyright infringement lawsuit, alleging that the Internet Archive’s controversial program to scan and lend books under an untested legal theory known as “controlled digital lending” is little more than a massive piracy operation “masquerading as a not-for-profit library.”

In their third and final reply brief, attorneys for the plaintiff publishers say the “undisputed facts and settled law” lead to the “inexorable conclusion” that IA’s scanning and lending of library books is copyright infringement on a massive scale….”

AAA Publishing Looks Toward the (Murky) Future – Anthropology News

Posted on by
Reply

“As a committee, we have discussed various business models for open access, from transformative agreements like the one between Elsevier and the University of California system to the Subscribe to Open model now being implemented at Berghahn and Annual Reviews. We have begun to consider a more federated approach to AnthroSource that would bring together AAA content from multiple sources, inspired by the work of the Next Generation Library Publishing project. Over the past decade, different iterations of the PFC have also thought about the possibility of creating a larger mega-journal composed of Sections corresponding to some of the subfields represented in our current portfolio….

The second step of the process will be to engage a third-party scholarly communication consultant to assist in plotting out scenarios for a sustainable future for the AAA publishing program. Experience with a range of open access models and a demonstrated understanding of the challenges facing social science society publishers will be our primary considerations in selecting a consultant. A consultant who sees the advantages of partnering with different types of publishers will be given the highest consideration. The committee regards the results of the self-study as critical to the consultant’s work, and we will request that prospective consultants outline a process for reaching out to and collaborating with the Sections. It is the PFC’s hope that the consultant will be able to provide each publishing section with a clearer understanding of not only a future for their journal but also of the portfolio as it moves toward a more open future.”

PETITION: Mega-corps are trying to ban libraries from owning digital books!

Posted on by
Reply

“Currently, major publishers offer no option for libraries to own and preserve digital books. They’re even suing to ban libraries from making their own digital books. With so many diverse voices published only in digital format, and digital books often more accessible for the most marginalized library patrons, this is unacceptable. Sign on now to demand that the largest publishing lobby in the US reverse course and stand up for libraries in 2023! …”

Statement from Shelley Husband, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, AAP, on Decision by The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to Make Private Sector Publications Freely Available – AAP

Posted on by
Reply

“Today’s announcement from OSTP about access policies for private sector research publications comes without formal, meaningful consultation or public input during this Administration on a decision that will have sweeping ramifications, including serious economic impact….

In a no-embargo environment, in which private publications will be made immediately available by the government for free, our primary concerns are about business sustainability and quality.  

Many publishers have increased the speed and efficiency of the publication process, regularly launched new journals to increase the dissemination of research and embraced diverse publication and access models to sustain and support researchers and research institutions, including those that reduce time to access.  This important work is part of a competitive marketplace geared towards excellence; it is very different than the government mandating business models.  How will publishers, especially small publishers, sustain the accuracy, quality, and output that the public interest requires?

As we work with the Administration and Congress in the days ahead, our focus will be to preserve our nation’s leadership in research and innovation, and to ensure that we continue to have a vibrant independent industry for scholarly publications.”

AAP Seeking $300K in Legal Fees After Winning Maryland E-book Case

Posted on by
Reply

“After successfully challenging Maryland’s library e-book law in court, the Association of American Publishers is now seeking to recover roughly $300,000 in court costs and legal fees from the state. The figure was confirmed to PW by Maryland officials and comes after Judge Deborah L. Boardman set a briefing schedule for the parties in an order last week.

Under Boardman’s June 23 order, if the parties do not “resolve AAP’s request” for fees and costs, AAP’s brief in support of its request for costs and attorney fees is due August 22. The state’s opposition is due September 21; the AAP’s reply is then due on October 6, 2022….”

AAP Asks Court to Permanently Enjoin Maryland Library E-book Law

Posted on by
Reply

“Maryland’s library e-book law is one step closer to its end. In a filing this week, the Association of American Publishers asked federal judge Deborah L. Boardman to close the door once and for all on the law by converting her February preliminary injunction blocking the law into a permanent injunction.

“[Maryland] has provided no assurance that the Maryland Act will never be enforced. The State has not taken any action to repeal the Maryland Act. Moreover, [the state] offers only attorney argument for the proposition that the State ‘does not intend’ to enforce the Maryland Act,” the AAP brief states. “Intentions can change. An injunction precludes the State from enforcing the Maryland Act, period.”

In an April 26 order, Boardman asked Maryland attorneys to respond to the AAP filing by May 9.

The AAP response comes after Boardman in February issued a preliminary injunction barring Maryland’s library e-book law from being enforced, holding that the state’s law is in fact preempted by the federal Copyright Act….

But AAP lawyers told the court that a declaratory judgment is simply not enough to protect publishers….”

Maryland Gives Up on Its Library E-book Law

Posted on by
Reply

“Maryland’s library e-book law is effectively dead. In a court filing this week, Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh said the state would present no new evidence in a legal challenge filed by the Association of American Publishers, allowing the court’s recently issued preliminary injunction blocking the law to stand, and paving the way for it to be converted into a permanent injunction. …

First introduced in January 2021, the Maryland law required any publisher offering to license “an electronic literary product” to consumers in the state to also offer to license the content to public libraries “on reasonable terms” that would enable library users to have access. The bill passed the Maryland General Assembly unanimously on March 10, and went into effect on January 1, 2022.

The law emerged after a decade of tension in the digital library market, with libraries long complaining of unsustainable, non-negotiated high prices and restrictions. More specifically, however, the law emerged as a direct response to Macmillan’s (since abandoned) 2019 embargo on frontlist e-book titles, which prompted numerous appeals to both federal and state legislators to protect basic access to digital works in libraries. …”