Head of Open Scholarship Services (Open Rank)

“Open Scholarship Services (OSS) is a refocused front-facing program within the University Libraries, administered by the Associate Dean, Collection Strategies and Services. The OSS Head is responsible for providing visionary leadership and oversight of the OSS team and program. The OSS Head will participate in campus-wide efforts to open, share, and preserve the University’s scholarship and research.

Position Description for the Head of Open Scholarship Services
To apply for position, please go to Head of Open Scholarship Services application page …”

Maryland Gives Up on Its Library E-book Law

“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. …”

Librarian III – Scholarly Communications Librarian

“Johns Hopkins University and Medicine is a world leader in advancing biomedical research, specifically in translational and data sciences, and precision medicine initiatives.  With its top-ranked health sciences schools, affiliated hospitals, and health system, Johns Hopkins is setting the standard for excellence in education, clinical care, and global engagement to improve human health, and we are committed to creating a working and learning environment that embraces and supports diversity, inclusion, and health equity. 

 

The Welch Medical Library seeks to hire a Scholarly Communications Librarian  to continue to provide and grow our scholarly communication services to serve the faculty, staff, and students of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. This librarian will work as an information expert alongside faculty, staff, fellows, residents and students in in the Schools of Medicine, Public Health, Nursing, and/or the Johns Hopkins Health System.

 

The successful applicant will be able to take advantage of a flexible, fast-paced work environment to build partnerships with user communities primarily engaged in clinical and academic medicine, nursing, and public health research, and develop new services and curricula to meet evolving users’ needs. They will also have a demonstrated track record of self-motivation, strong interpersonal and collaboration skills, and a personal commitment to excellence and innovation….”

Publishing Giants Are Fighting Libraries on E-Books – Sludge

“According to a recent survey by the library group ReadersFirst, e-book prices for libraries have tripled over the past nine years, with publishers charging between $20 and $65 for an e-book copy that libraries cannot own permanently. For popular e-books, libraries pay $55 for a copy that expires after two years, or $550 for a copy for 20 years, compared with the about $15 that a consumer would pay, according to the American Library Association (ALA).

The Maryland law passed 130 to 0 in the General Assembly and 47-0 in the Maryland Senate, and took effect on the first day of this year. Last month, however, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, siding with AAP’s argument in their lawsuit that the law interferes with federal copyright law. The Maryland attorney general will defend the state’s law, a stance applauded by the ALA. …

As it fights against these bills, the AAP and its affiliated groups, backed by massive corporations, have far more money and resources to apply to their legal work, and have spent far more on lobbying efforts and political contributions. …”

MLA Response to Decision by U.S. District Court of Maryland’s ruling on eBook legislation.

“This hearing has shown that the status quo of publishers charging what they want for limited licensing is unjust. Judge Boardman herself said in the hearing, !It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” This inequity is on clear display when it comes to the cost libraries, and in turn taxpayers, pay for physical materials in comparison to the restricted access and high costs of eBooks. Under the current model set by the publishers, libraries pay anywhere from $54 to $75 for a two-year license for a single eBook. By comparison, the printed version of the same book would cost a library $15 to $18 and not be subjected to a time-limited license. This illustrates the truth to our Attorney General’s claim that this is not a matter of copyright protection, but about “the unfair and discriminatory trade practices of publishers at the expense of public libraries.” MLA will follow the proceedings with confidence in our position and with profound thanks to the Maryland Legislature and the Maryland Attorney General”s Office for their determined stance and support. The legislature”s unanimous support is a reflection of the will of Maryland residents that one should not be required to have a credit card to access information. MLA continues to support a call for publishers to enter into discussion with libraries. We further call for library associations to continue to raise awareness of the unfair trade practices and imbalance in terms employed by publishers. Libraries seek reasonable terms so we may ensure that our clients will have access to content; similar to the terms that have been considered reasonable for print material. More than a century’s worth of experience shows that the example of print, and its pricing model, is a fair standard for all: authors, publishers, libraries, and most importantly, readers….”

Maryland Library Association Releases a Statement — Readers First

“The Maryland Library Association (MLA) has released a statement about the ongoing hearing on its ebook law. Some highlights: …

This hearing has shown that the status quo of publishers charging what they want for limited licensing is unjust. Judge Boardman herself said in the hearing, !It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” This inequity is on clear display when it comes to the cost libraries, and in turn taxpayers, pay for physical materials in comparison to the restricted access and high costs of eBooks. Under the current model set by the publishers, libraries pay anywhere from $54 to $75 for a two-year license for a single eBook. By comparison, the printed version of the same book would cost a [library] $15 to $18 and not be subjected to a time-limited license. This illustrates the truth to our Attorney General’s claim that this is not a matter of copyright protection, but about “the unfair and discriminatory trade practices of publishers at the expense of public libraries.” MLA will follow the proceedings with confidence in our position and with profound thanks to the Maryland Legislature and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for their determined stance and support. The legislature’s unanimous support is a reflection of the will of Maryland residents that one should not be required to have a credit card to access information….”

ALA upholds Maryland e-books law and state’s defense as federal district court issues preliminary injunction | News and Press Center

“On February 16, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a preliminary injunction of Maryland’s library digital book law in the case of Association of American Publishers v. Brian Frosh. The legislation, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, requires publishers who sell e-book licenses to Maryland consumers to also sell licenses to Maryland public libraries “on reasonable terms.” Court proceedings continue towards final adjudication of the complaint by the Association of American Publishers.

The American Library Association (ALA) issued the following statement from ALA President Patty Wong:

“The American Library Association is disappointed that the court issued the preliminary injunction. Regardless of the legal technicalities, the proceedings thus far have established that there is a definite injustice in library access to digital books.*

“The Maryland legislature, which voted unanimously in favor of the legislation, rightly sees the unfairness in the marketplace and used its legal authority to correct it. ALA sees the unfairness to our public libraries, which have paid for e-book licenses on unreasonable terms for far too long. Most importantly, libraries see the unfairness for Maryland residents, who rely on them for access to e-books.

“ALA unequivocally supports the Maryland law …”

Publishers Win Preliminary Injunction Against Maryland Law that Requires Licensing Digital Works to Libraries

“Publishers scored a win yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland when the court granted their request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Maryland Act, which essentially calls for compulsory licensing of electronic literary works to libraries on “reasonable terms”. The law went into effect on January 1, 2022.

The lawsuit was brought by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) against the state of Maryland and charged that the Maryland Act was preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act. The Maryland Act requires publishers to 1) offer to license copyrighted electronic literary products, such as eBooks and digital audiobooks, to public libraries, and (2) to ensure the terms of such licenses are fair. The goal was to avoid up-charging and stringent licensing restrictions on libraries….”

Maryland Defends Its Library E-book Law, Seeks Dismissal of AAP Lawsuit

“In a January 14 filing, the Maryland Attorney General defended the state’s new library e-book law, rejecting the Association of American Publishers’ contention that the measure runs afoul of federal copyright law.

“This case is not about copyright protection—it is about the unfair and discriminatory trade practices of publishers at the expense of public libraries,” reads the first line of the state’s brief. “[When] a publisher elevates its own reward to the detriment of the public, the state has a legitimate interest in remedying the situation,” the brief later states. “Maryland decided to remedy such a situation, and chose a remedy that is fully consistent with the purpose of copyright.” 

The Maryland e-book law went into effect on January 1. It requires that publishers offering e-books to consumers in the state must also offer to license the works to public libraries on “reasonable” terms.

The filing comes after the AAP on December 9 sued Maryland state officials in federal court, arguing that the law is preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The AAP also claims the law violates interstate commerce laws, and is unconstitutionally vague. The heart of the case, however, is that the Maryland law allegedly functions as a “compulsory license” that infringes on the exclusive rights granted to publishers and authors under copyright. The AAP is seeking an order declaring the Maryland law is preempted, as well a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the act.

In their 42-page legal memorandum, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and his team counter that the state’s library e-book law is constitutional, does not touch upon the exclusive rights granted under copyright, and is in fact a “modest” consumer protection statute enacted to prevent some publishers from “capitalizing on the digital revolution at libraries’ expense.” …”

With AAP Reply, Legal Battle Over Maryland Library E-book Law Intensifies

“In a January 28 court filing, lawyers for the Association of American publishers doubled down on their claim that Maryland’s library e-book law is clearly preempted by the federal Copyright Act, and said supporters of the law are seeking to “unravel decades of federal legislation and jurisprudence that delineate the contours of copyright law.”

In their 37-page reply filing, AAP lawyers asked the court to reject Maryland’s recently filed motion to dismiss the AAP’s case, and to grant the AAP’s motion for a preliminary injunction blocking the law….

Maryland attorneys argue that publishers “continue to enjoy complete control over the rights granted by the Copyright Act,” and insist that the law does not compel a license, only a reasonable “offer to license” and only when a work is also available to consumers. No publisher, the state insists, will be “forced to enter into involuntary and uneconomic licensing agreements.”

Furthermore, Maryland attorneys argue there is an “extra element” that augurs against federal preemption—the state’s authority to regulate against unfair and discriminatory contracts….”

Libraries, Publishers Battle Over Terms for E-Books’ Use (1)

“States that want to give libraries a better deal on e-books are watching a publishers’ suit against Maryland, the first state to set terms for how digital books are distributed for public borrowing.

Library associations, including the American Library Association and several state groups, have been pushing for state laws to require publishers to distribute digital works to libraries on “reasonable” terms that the states would set. The groups say libraries pay too much for electronic books and should be able to get them at lower prices.

The bills and the law enacted in Maryland have set off alarm bells for authors and publishers who fear the legislation encroaches on copyrights.

Similar suits to the one in Maryland by the Association of American Publishers might follow if bills in other states move forward, copyright attorneys, publishing industry lobbyists and others said. They say the bills propose a radical rewriting of the copyright system that only Congress is able to change….”

Libraries, Publishers Battle Over Terms for E-Books’ Use (1)

“States that want to give libraries a better deal on e-books are watching a publishers’ suit against Maryland, the first state to set terms for how digital books are distributed for public borrowing.

Library associations, including the American Library Association and several state groups, have been pushing for state laws to require publishers to distribute digital works to libraries on “reasonable” terms that the states would set. The groups say libraries pay too much for electronic books and should be able to get them at lower prices.

The bills and the law enacted in Maryland have set off alarm bells for authors and publishers who fear the legislation encroaches on copyrights.

Similar suits to the one in Maryland by the Association of American Publishers might follow if bills in other states move forward, copyright attorneys, publishing industry lobbyists and others said. They say the bills propose a radical rewriting of the copyright system that only Congress is able to change….”

Update: AAP Sues Maryland Over E-Lending Law | Authors Alliance

“Yesterday, the Association of American Publishers (“AAP”) announced it had filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the state of Maryland seeking to block the state’s new e-book lending law from taking effect on January 1st, 2022. This year, Maryland was the first of several states to pass a bill requiring publishers to license e-books to libraries on “reasonable terms,” and is the only state in which such a law is set to go into effect. Authors Alliance has written about this type of state legislation in the past, and we have been following these developments closely throughout the year.

In 2021, multiple states proposed—and in some cases, passed—state legislation requiring publishers to license e-books to libraries on reasonable terms. The legislation responds in part to publishers’ trend in recent years of charging libraries higher prices for e-book licenses than they do consumers: in some cases, libraries must pay up to five times as much as an individual consumer for an e-book license. Moreover, these licenses often come with restrictive terms, such as limits on the number of times an e-book can be checked out before the license is terminated. The issue gained particular salience during the COVID-19 pandemic, as libraries across the country shuttered in-person operations, and patrons were forced to turn to e-books and other digital services in order to access library resources.

In March of this year, the Maryland state legislature unanimously passed the Maryland library e-book lending bill. Before the bill could become law, it faced last-minute opposition by the AAP, which claimed the bill was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Governor Larry Hogan announced that the bill had become law in May, and would go into effect in January of next year. Described by its proponents as “fairly mild,” the Maryland legislation requires “a publisher who offers to license an electronic literary product to the public to also offer to license the product to public libraries in the State on reasonable terms that would enable public libraries to provide library users with access to the electronic literary product.” “Reasonable terms” are not explicitly defined in the statute, leaving Maryland libraries and publishers to negotiate these terms….”

Library Futures | Statement on the Association of American Publishers Suit Against the State of Maryland

“We are dismayed, but ultimately unsurprised, by the Association of American Publishers’s decision to file suit against the State of Maryland for their ebooks law, passed unanimously by the General Assembly on March 10th, 2021. This law is set to go into effect on January 1, 2022. It represents the Maryland Library Association’s efforts to simply request equal access and pricing in digital content. Nevertheless, the AAP’s complaint calls Maryland’s law “radical.” 

What is “radical” is the lawsuit’s multiple spurious claims regarding the intention of the law, attempting to deflect the blame for the price gouging and rent-seeking behavior for library digital content on technology companies rather than its own members’ behaviors in the market. Public libraries are spending upwards of three times consumer pricing for econtent from the big publishing companies. Further, libraries must continually re-buy their collections over and over or risk having their titles disappear from their collections after the licenses expire or stop being offered.

The AAP’s suit does not represent the view of authors, creatives, or even most publishing companies other than a minority of the biggest media corporations in the world. This famously litigious trade organization has tried to stop libraries before, and they have lost every time. Ultimately, the lawsuit represents a pattern of behavior that demonstrates the commercial publishing industry’s continued disdain for the librarians, educators, and the public who simply want resources to provide access to materials, combat misinformation, and provide quality education in the State of Maryland and beyond….”

The Association of American Publishers Files Suit Against the State of Maryland Over Unprecedented Encroachment Into Federally Protected Copyrights

The Association of American Publishers (AAP), the national trade association for the U.S. publishing industry, today filed suit against the Maryland Attorney General seeking to enjoin and overturn an unconstitutional Maryland law that directly conflicts with the federal Copyright Act by forcing any publisher, domestic and foreign, to make their literary works available to Maryland public libraries in electronic book and audiobook formats according to timing, pricing, and other terms mandated by the state under threat of penalty.