There’s an old federal law that affects publishers. It requires every book publisher to submit two copies of each work published to the Copyright Office, without getting any payment. It originated long before automatic copyright and print-on-demand existed. Originally that served the purpose of securing copyright, and it only affected large-volume publishers. The burden on such publishers was low.
Today the law still exists, but it’s rarely enforced. With automatic copyright, it no longer serves its original purpose. Collecting free books from every print-on-demand operation and every fan publisher would ruin them. But when someone in the government wants to target a business, antiquated laws are useful. The Copyright Office is trying to ruin small PoD publisher Valancourt Books by enforcing this law.
Destroying print-on-demand
Valancourt Books is a print-on-demand house run by a same-sex married couple with no other employees. It has over 400 books in print, so the government is demanding that they send over 800 volumes, paying for both printing and shipping out of their own pockets. The alternative is to pay a fine of $250 plus the book’s retail price for each book. That’s a ruinous cost either way.
If failing to send the government copies of books that you’ve published is illegal, I’m a repeat offender. I’ve edited and produced numerous songbooks for sale or free distribution among science fiction and filk music fans. None of them have sold over a hundred copies, but as far as I know there’s no exemption for small sales.
The Institute for Justice is defending Valancourt Books. It argues that the demand violates the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights by taking property without compensation, as well as violating the First Amendment by placing a heavy burden on publishers.
Why is Valancourt a target?
No one seems to know why the Copyright Office singled out Valancourt with this demand. Did someone in the Copyright Office have a grudge against the owner? Does someone there hate same-sex marriage? Did a competitor call in a favor? Is this a trial balloon for stomping on small publishers in general? I have no clue. It’s hard to say which would be worse, launching a campaign to destroy one publisher or reviving a law to drive small print-on-demand operations out of business.
Here’s a statement by James Jenkins on what the government is doing to his business.
The Copyright Office’s threat to fine our small business out of existence isn’t just outrageous, it’s also unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says the government can’t take private property — whether it’s your home or our books — without paying for it. And the First Amendment guarantees authors and publishers the right to free speech — but speech isn’t “free” if you risk enormous fines unless you give copies of your work to the government at your expense.
This is a case worth watching. If the government wins, it’s bad news for all small publishers, especially PoD publishers, in the United States. But the Institute for Justice has won a lot of cases, and it may well win this one.