Library e-book bill stalls in commerce committee over deadline dispute

Discussion about a bill to regulate libraries’ contracts for electronic literary materials with vendors devolved into a partisan dispute Tuesday.

The House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee spent most of its discussion time in disagreements over whether HF3698 was akin to book banning, as well as the legitimacy of the committee’s meeting and voting on the bill after the March 27 first two committee deadlines.

After confusion about whether the committee could move the bill to the House Floor or to the House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee after the deadlines, a motion to send it to the rules committee went down on a 10-8 roll call vote. Although it received more votes in the affirmative, it didn’t receive the bipartisan votes required to move on.

Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) took issue with a roll-call vote on a bill about libraries. “I’ve never seen in all my years here, and it’s a disturbing trend, that we are making libraries partisan. … This is absurd. We have deadlines for a reason. This is strictly a political vote and I can’t wait to vote no for this because I’m going to tell my libraries that they’re being used as political pawns. They’re being used as political pawns and the rules are being broken. This is an illegitimate meeting.” 

Rep. Carlie Kotyza-Witthuhn (DFL-Eden Prairie) said it’s important in a tied House to know the number of votes via a roll-call vote instead of asking for a division (show of hands) after a voice vote. “When we don’t call a roll and then we need to find out how many votes there are in order to pass the bill out of committee, it wastes committee time. It’s silly and I don’t think it’s partisan because we’re all elected as partisans and if you are afraid to have your vote on the record …”

HF3698, as amended, would address a “growing imbalance in the digital book marketplace,” said Sarah Hawkins, legislative committee co-chair of the Minnesota Library Association.

Libraries pay three to five times more than consumers for e-books and the licenses they buy for those e-books expire after two years or 26 check-outs, she said. Additionally, libraries can’t negotiate or comparison shop for e-books. While demand for physical books has remained flat for libraries, demand for e-books is increasing, which is eating into library budgets.

“We’re not purchasing lasting community assets. We’re paying for short-term rentals repeatedly,” she said.

[MORE: Minnesota Library Association presentation]

The bill would prohibit libraries from entering contracts with vendors that include provisions that would ban the library from loaning e-books, including through an interlibrary loan system; restrict the number of times the library can loan e-books if it also restricts the library’s loan period for the material; and limit the number of e-book licenses the library can purchase on the day it’s available for purchase by the public.

Rep. David Gottfried (DFL-Shoreview), the bill sponsor, said it addresses the problem of price gouging that libraries face with e-book and audiobook vendors.

Representing the Association of American Publishers, Justin Emmerich said the bill would “reduce access, undermine the rights of authors and publishers and undermine the viability of other book markets.” It would enable the government to make decisions about authors’ intellectual property. It would also reduce patrons’ access to digital library materials. When publishers can’t meet the contract demands laid out in the bill, libraries will lose access to new releases, have higher costs and be unable to license e-books entirely.

[MORE: The Authors Guild testimony]

Rep. Ron Kresha (R-Little Falls) said the contract requirements in the bill would restrict or prohibit a library’s ability to enter into an agreement. “I’m a big proponent of the libraries, I support what you do, but you’re asking me to vote for essentially a book banning provision that you could do on your own.”

After a dispute between Kresha and Co-Chair Rep. Erin Koegel (DFL-Spring Lake Park) over his comments, Gottfried replied that there’s “multiple steps” between trying to use tax dollars responsibly with a good contract and banning books. “Those are very, very different things.”

Kresha clarified that his point was that only libraries will be restricted by the bill, which sets up a “difficult situation” and doesn’t get at the root problem of accessibility, which is controlled by the publishers.