Law Profs Revolt after Aspen Casebook Tries to Get Around First Sale Doctrine

On May 5, a number of law professors around the country received an email from publisher Wolters Kluwer regarding the 11 books in the Aspen Casebook series they assign to their students. The email informed the educators that the casebook, which combines lessons about the legal system with documents from cases in which those principles were applied or set, would now be sold as a physical copy bundled with an ebook edition. There was just one catch: once the course was over, students would be required to ship their physical copies back to the publisher, rather than hanging onto them for reference or reselling them on the used book market.
Aspen CasebookOn May 5, a number of law professors around the country received an email from publisher Wolters Kluwer regarding the 11 books in the Aspen Casebook series they assign to their students. The email informed the educators that the casebook, which combines lessons about the legal system with documents from cases in which those principles were applied or set, would now be sold as a physical copy bundled with an ebook edition. There was just one catch: once the course was over, students would be required to ship their physical copies back to the publisher, rather than hanging onto them for reference or reselling them on the used book market. The policy didn’t sit well with many of the professors who use the Aspen Casebook in their courses. The idea violates the first sale doctrine, long applied to books and other physical media, which prohibits publishers or other rights holders from placing restrictions on the transfer of legally obtained, copyrighted objects after those works have been sold to a consumer. If a consumer has purchased a copy of a work, they are free to resell it as they wish. While a debate continues to rage about whether first sale does, should, or could apply to digital works, which are usually licensed rather than sold, the Supreme Court upheld its application to print textbooks as recently as last year. Josh Blackman, an assistant professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston who wrote about the situation on his blog, said the new policy seemed closer to the Amazon and Apple model of licensing content for use by consumers, rather than actually selling it to them outright. “Journal publishers are trying to find ways to make more profit,” Blackman told LJ. “And one of the ways they can do it is by transitioning from people owning books to people licensing books.” The shift in policy, which Blackman said took him and other professors completely by surprise, resulted in a backlash against the publisher, with hundreds of professors and students signing on to a petition begun by University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelmann. (Grimmelmann may be best known to readers as a commentator on the Authors Guild’s long running court cases against Google Books and the HathiTrust.) Within days, Wolters Kluwer had reversed course—to a degree. Rather than offering only the bundled book and ebook, the company will offer students the option to buy the bundle, in which case they’ll still be required to return the printed edition, while retaining access to their digital version in perpetuity. The students will also be offered the option to buy just the print version of the casebooks, which they can keep or resell as they please, but a digital copy won’t be included. In a statement on the Aspen Law website, Wolters Kluwer vice president and general manager for legal education Vikram Savkar said, “While we are very excited about the Connected Casebook program, and believe that this option provides greater value for students, the choice of which option to purchase remains entirely with each student.” While it’s not a perfect solution, Blackman said that the choice is an important one. Which choice is a good idea for students, he told LJ, will depend on the student, as well as on the cost attached to the different options. Wolters Kluwer representatives failed to respond to requests for comment. Grimmelmann, who still has his physical casebooks from his law school days, told LJ ,. “Their new policy is not a complete answer to the problem of rising casebook costs,” he said. “But it’s absolutely the right thing on the particular issue that sparked this protest.” He also pointed out that casebooks, which are largely made up of extant records from court proceedings, require less author input than other traditional textbooks, meaning that keeping them affordable for students could allow for different strategies. He has authored a DRM free casebook, offered as a PDF under a pay-what-you-can model, and pointed to projects like the Harvard-based H2O model, which takes an open source approach to crafting course readings and was launched with casebooks as its ‘beta’ example, as other potential long-term fixes. While casebooks may be an odd duck, though, he said the lesson from recent kerfuffle is one that all textbook publishers should pay attention to, telling LJ that “the general point that first sale is not to be taken away is a particularly relevant one.” Blackman was less sure that this flare up would convince publishers to abandon the attempt to shift physical textbooks to a licensing model entirely, but also said that it will at least make publishers more transparent about their policies and offer educators more time to prepare for changes in policy. “It will make publishers leery about trying something like this without consulting professors first,” he said. Such a shift would likely make libraries even less likely or able to collect textbooks for student use. Since libraries rely on the first sale doctrine for their right to lend books, as well as to deaccession their weeded copies to raise funds, they are some of its staunchest defenders.
Comment Policy:
  • Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  • Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  • Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  • Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media.
  • If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.


knownever

Kaplan and other test prep companies make similar restrictions (banning their resale) on the study materials provided during their courses. For example, the multi-volume workbooks for preparatory classes for the LSAT and other exams.

Posted : May 23, 2014 08:15


Tony Greiner

This is good news. Now can ALA take on film-makers who require the purchase of public performance rights, or who 'license' their DVDs to higher-education at rates higher than the general public?

Posted : May 23, 2014 07:29

Creators WantToEarnToo

There is a whole other party involved in this issue! The ALA's take is one-sided and shocking because it is one that does not concerning the economic realities for content creators.

Filmmakers do license their films, series to educators for a higher price, because "performances" generally entail a group of people view the content rather than one person or household. Performance rights stop a single unauthorized person from taking another's film or series or music and playing it at gathering of 10-1000 people. Imagine 1 million "consumers" or "libraries" and "non-profits" doing that, just playing movies and tv shows at any old gathering they please... Why should a filmmaker have to deal with such unfair competition with people gifting their content away?

When educators, libraries, theatres, Hulu, Netflix and more, pay for performance or distribution rights, they are paying more than any single consumer for good reason, so that the 1000's involved in that content's production can earn a living - just like you, just like any consumer who works for a living. It takes as much or more investment to produce a single movie or tv series than it does to manufacture a line of cars. Libraries pay more for a digital titles because the Library is not a consumer, the library is a distributor who is licensing distribution rights from the author/publisher or producer/studio to lend up to an agreed upon number of Library members.

Libraries should not undermine the digital licensing model by trying to apply the "first sale" doctrine to digital content. That is not sustainable and would harm the diversity they seek to provide to the public. The solution is more public funding. However, libraries also cannot become the "public Amazon" of content, without competing with and harming creators by such competition. Currently, libraries need to ask for better terms; perhaps ask to increase single copy leasing to 52 per year, rather than the current 53 per two years. Libraries use the example they pay $60 to lend an ebook up to 53 people per two year period, that consumers pay $14 for. Libraries complain it is 5 times more, but consumers are not lending their ebooks to 53 other readers; which means the author gets paid 11 cents per reader. Per reader, the library is paying only $1.13 to distribute an ebook to 53 readers, which is a 90% discount that the consumer reader pays to read the same title. 65 libraries EACH lent 1 million ebooks to library readers; if allowed to pay $14 one-time; instead of $60 per ebook/per 53 readers over 2 years; libraries would be paying only 26 cents per reader and the author would only earn $1.40 one-time, instead of per reader. If an ebook is lent to 1 million readers, an author could earn $110,000 over two years. That is still only $55,000/yr and could be more than earnings from retail sales. Would you or anyone want to earn $1.40 instead of $55,000/year? Consumers forget that people who make things or distribute content, invest millions, and put millions at risk so consumers have new or better things or content each year.

Compare a single consumer gifting their kitchen table to someone... that table is not presented or copied and gifted to 200 or 1000 others. Why should it be okay to gift a film or tv series or song to 200 or 1000 others just because the "gift" is not a table and it was easy to copy or share? Consumers rent cars and return them 2 days later as agreed upon. Some rent cars for 3 years and either rent the car or buy it. Some rent furniture or an apartment for a 1 year or more. Why is it so hard for the public to lease an ebook?

If educators and libraries don't have to pay to show or lend digital content, then creators will be hit with a 99% pay cut. I've done the math - it's ugly for the film, tv and literary and music industries. It would be a pay cut for all, writers, screenwriters, producers, musicians, game developers, software makers, publishers, studios, distributors and vendors and all their employees. It would be like pandemic shutdowns financially. Diversity would be over as studios and publishers focus on content that sells to the majority of consumers. How many films or ebooks about minority culture would survive that pay cut? I'm watching a great story now about a black female entrepreneur at the turn of the 20th century. I would hate to see content like that disappear. That content exists because Netflix gets paid per person/household, similar to consumers paying per person to see films in theaters. The Libraries claim they want to provide more ebooks to the public, to support more diverse voices, but applying first sale doctrine to digital would have the opposite effect. Studios, Publishers and Music lables would not be able to invest in as many new voices as they do now, in fact they need to invest in more; they can't do that without profits.

Content Creators have already taken many pay cuts in ad supported pay models as platforms update requirements to monetize content and lower pay per ad served, rewarding the most popular content with higher pay than paying ad revenue equitably per views. Many content creators lost their livelihoods in such cuts. You can watch their videos that say so. Legislation changes have also cut pay for some content creators that produced kids-friendly content, rules that have forced youtube to stop serving targeted advertising to children, stop search promotion on such content so such content is harder to discover and creators don't pick up new subscribers the same as they did before with viewers discovering their content. The government does it best to balance the rights of creators with consumer expectation, but the more consumers get for free, the more they expect for free and the pay models need to be sustainable for the people that work in and produce in the content industries.

Streaming is leasing.
Content creators took a pay cut due to pressures from streaming platforms to offer content for a monthly subscription and the desire of studios and distributors wanting to earn on their catalogue of older titles. It was great for consumers, but meant many filmmakers not earning from each viewer/household, because subscriptions fees are shared.

These industries adopted digital tech because the pay model is more fair to content creators when consumers would over share a single copy of any content because digital content is so easy to share unlike a printed book or DVD. Even if a digital file could be shared without copying, the pay model is fair and needed to support the diversity and amount of content consumers want and are accustomed too. If content can't earn "per customer" many studios, publishers and platforms would go out of business. If consumers want a large selection of content and diverse content, consumers do need to support the "pay per consumer (household) model."

Licensing will become more common, not less so, as car manufactures build electric cars, many are already planning a future where we consumers do not own our electric cars. I imagine it is because electric cars will be depending upon software for "self driving" benefits to the consumer. I find it rather scary that EFF won a case that now allows consumers to "open" the software on their vehicles to add or remove software, such as many do on a smartphone. If I had an electric car, I would want to own it. I am not sure why electric car manufactures plan a future where we are all leasing vehicles, but it may be because such vehicles depend on software to run, especially with self driving tech and the ever faster improvements in tech.

Posted : May 23, 2014 07:29

Creators WantToEarnToo

There is are other parties and their employees involved in this issue! The ALA's take is one-sided and shocking because it is one that does not concerning the economic realities for content creators. The Libraries are distributors, not consumers, so pay to distribute which of course costs more than a single copy, because more end users read the title. Content creators already have to compete within the industry to get paid, when Youtube pays more ad rev to more popular content rather than paying equal shares of ad rev for each view, meaning more ad rev goes to creators of the most popular content rather than rewarding diversity on the platform by paying the same rate to all creators for each view. These are market pressures that shape the pay model; however creators don't need the public that wants everything for free to share everything for free, further devaluing content. Consumers lease cars don't they without demanding they be free to share it or lend it. I hope print is part of the future, but most content creators need the revenue from "per view/per read" to earn the equivalent of an average wage earner's annual salary and most don't even earn that.

Posted : May 23, 2014 07:29


RELATED 

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?

We are currently offering this content for free. Sign up now to activate your personal profile, where you can save articles for future viewing

ALREADY A SUBSCRIBER?