Some specific issues he raises are:
For example: What about out of print texts that are provided by copying? What about small presses with titles still in use (100 per year) by classes of obscure topics? What format shall we prepare these files?
I’ve lumped these questions together
I noted the “legacy texts” issue as well in my previous post. Legacy texts, e.g. those that went to press, oh, probably more than 8-10 years ago, will be difficult to provide in any useful digital format because the source files, if they ever existed (!), are either in an antiquated digital format or no longer saved. Scanning in printed works can be expensive and frequently doesn’t put the content in a digital format that is that much more useful for a disabled user to work with (e.g. a scanned page can’t be read by a screen reader).
Publishers are not going to be reticent about providing digital files because of the format, though, but because of the risk of copying/distribution posed by releasing the digital source files to your analog product. C.f. Napster, RIAA, etc!
Would a publisher find a “business decision” to avoid sales in that state agreeable? And, when would a publisher know they are selling to a state student (Amazon, other web sites don’t discriminate) — is that publisher then liable?
Well, since a Georgia state law holding, say, a New York publishing house liable for damages for violating the rights of the Georgia disabled would
And, since ADA laws already protect the “print access disabled” does a state law add any value?
Absolutely!
Walk into the Office for Students With Disabilities at any campus and you’ll find that they manage all kinds of technology for magnification, scanning, text recognition, etc. Fifteen years ago that was the only way to get things done. Today, a blind learner has her own laptop with a capable screen reader, but can’t use that technology at hand to access her educational materials because the content isn’t available digitally. Or there’s technology that will highlight words/phrases for learners with reading disorders (e.g. dyslexia) to help them read better, but requires the content in a digital format. But, as far as education goes, the ADA puts the burden on the educational institution to make the educational materials accessible — so it becomes the responsibility of the institution to convert the texts for those users.
Why should the educational institution bear the costs of the publisher’s inaccessible content? Particulary when all contemporary content already exists in a digital format somewhere?
This is what interests me so much about this law — it shifts the burder from the consumer (the learner) and the middleman (the educational institution) to the producer (the publisher)…which is where the responsibility for accessibility should live.

Suppose you are a professor, a publisher, or a software/hardware company that provides materials used for instruction in a college (private or public), technical college, or university. Suppose further that the legislature passes a law requiring you to provide, on ten days notice, an electronic version of those materials so that students who are “print access disabled” can access the material (and, there electronic version can have no differences in content/context from print version).

What would you do?

Answer: I would applaud!
Apparently a bill, HB 1020, of the Georgia General Assembly would require the publisher to provide the material in digital format.
Please note that a “print access disability” does not mean you don’t have access to a laser printer! It refers to “a condition in which a person’s independent reading of, reading comprehension of, or visual access to printed material is limited or reduced due to a sensory, neurological, cognitive, physical, psychiatric, or other disability recognized by state or federal law.” E.g. blindness, reading disorders, etc.
This certainly puts an onus on the providers of print material, but since no commercial print material makes it to press these days without beginning its life as digital bits, the onus isn’t that large (except perhaps legacy texts).
Having worked extensively in a Deaf education environment, and also with some Deaf/blind learners, I’m all for legislation that puts the onus of accessibility on the purveyors of content, instead of making analog-to-digital conversion an issue the institution has to deal with.
Accessibility should take place on the production side, not the consumption side. Georgia has it right!