66 piped up to “Wherein UK Authors Get Paid For Books That Libraries Lend Out…”

1. Dawn Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 9:22 am

   1 Now I have to confess that I didn’t know that authors get a fee when I borrow their books from the library. But thinking about it – why not? As you mention, about music on the radio, it’s the same surely. I don’t have a problem with it at all. As to considering an author’s books “charitable works”, what the hell planet is this person from? If I were an author, I’d be mightily offended if someone said this to me. And well said to Elizabeth Chadwick, Grace whoever and Penny Jordan (even if her heroes make me want to shoot them through the temple!).

2. Scott Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:30 am

   2 Karen, the one problem is that radio stations are in business to make money. Libraries, for the most part in the US, are not out to make money. The money they make is to keep the place open. For the community. It’s not for profit. I have to say that I disagree with this approach. And it’s not a matter of paying more taxes. I am all for adding some socialistic values into our capitalism here in the US. But what tax money is out there, it is better spent elsewhere. Like teaching kids, and adults too, to read those books, instead of paying the authors twice for letting people read them. I understand where you are getting with this, believe me. I think it has merit. But given the nature of life in the US, again the money is better spent elsewhere before getting into a program like this.

3. Sparky Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

   3 I am bemused. Why is it that so many programms and iniatives many nations take for granted (like healthcare and PLR) suddenly insurmountably expensive when the richest country in the world considers them? Sure countries that have far less money can manage it, but in the US? FAAAAAR too expensive. How come Americans seem to be desperately fretting over every tax dollar and be utterly unable to manage the services other nations consider a basic necessity? Capitalism seems to be taken to a form of religion in America. People’s benefit, wellbeing – even basic decent health and wellness – something we should recognise as a universal human right – are all far lower priorities behind money and profit. How very very depressing. Everything has a price – but nothing has value.

4. Nonny Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

   4 I don’t think it’s a bad idea. In fact, I quite like it and would love to see it in practice someday. That said, I think the economy in the US is in bad enough shape right now that trying to implement such an idea would hurt more than it would help.

5. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

   5 Hi, Karen - I follow (and enjoy) your blog by feed, but I’ve never commented here before. I live in the US, and I’m both a public librarian and a soon-to-be-published author, so I have some investment in both sides of the issue. I was one of the ones who initially commented on the SB thread about how difficult this would be to implement in the US, before the whole workings of PLR in the UK were completely explained. Since then, I’ve thought more about it – a lot more about it – and while I’m delighted to hear that it’s working for authors in the UK and Australia, I still personally don’t think it’s a good idea for us in the USA. Maybe this time I can do a better job of explaining why I feel that way. First, as Scott points out, the analogy with a radio station doesn’t really hold up. Radio stations are for-profit enterprises. They make money off the musicians when they play the songs (by selling advertising), and therefore the musicians are due a royalty. A public library, in essence, is simply a group of people who pool their money together to buy more books than they could afford individually, and then share them amongst themselves. No profit involved, just free public access to books and information. Second, just as a point of background, I really think a lot of US librarians would balk at this proposal. I honestly have no concept of how UK librarians view their profession, or how the institution of the public library is viewed in British society, and this is NOT meant to be a “we Americans do it better” observation. But as a group, verrry generally speaking, public librarians in the USA (and our professional organization, ALA) have a long tradition of championing civil liberties, most particularly the freedom of our citizens to read whatever they damn well please without answering to anyone for it. And by extension, the right of a community to establish library services and policies that serve local needs, not federal ones. This is why we have Banned Books Week, why we legally support librarians who resist pressure to censor materials or limit Internet access, and why we tried, tried, tried to fight the Patriot Act–which sadly made it legal, for the first time, for law enforcement authorities to subpoena an individual’s library borrowing records. Most of us librarians think it’s none of the government’s business what our patrons read–and that’s one reason why many libraries keep purposely vague statistics about what gets borrowed, by whom. I realize that PLR involves impersonal numbers, taken as a sample of all libraries…but honestly, any further federal intrusion into library borrowing statistics makes me very itchy, as someone who (perhaps loftily) sees her job as reflective of those great ideals of freedom of thought and information. Because no such national system exists at the moment, at the very least, establishing PLR here would involve the creation of some national agency to collect statistics–I could easily see that agency then mandating what kind of statistics libraries keep, how we store them, who is able to access them… I just really, really don’t want to go there. Not as a librarian, not as a citizen. And not as author, either. Sure, it would be great to get a PLR check every year. Who doesn’t like getting paid? I would never argue that authors don’t deserve better compensation for their work. Like librarianship (heh), it’s a vastly underpaid profession. But honestly, I have a hard time accepting the basic assumption behind this whole thing – that we need PLR because public library borrowing hurts an author’s income. I understand that it may cost an author some sales, if people borrow a book from the library rather than purchase it. But it also increases name recognition and word of mouth, at no cost to the author. I know there have been many, many times that I’ve discovered an author through library borrowing and then gone on to purchase other books by her. Plus, the general economic benefits an author receives from libraries are immeasurable. Libraries create our audience–from preschool storytimes, to adult literary programs, to book clubs and other events–by nurturing a culture of reading and bringing along the next generation of book buyers. And I know I use my public library all the time for research and reading related to my writing–that’s a professional benefit to me that I pay nothing for. If an economist took a comprehensive look at all the costs and benefits associated with public library borrowing, specifically in respect to authors’ income, I honestly suspect such a study would find that authors are coming out ahead, financially. Sorry this has been so long, but like I said – I’ve been thinking about this ever since that SB thread, and I’m glad you brought it up again. It’s really not a knee-jerk “we Americans hate taxes” response, at least not on my part. Although I’ll admit there’s an element of knee-jerk “this particular American mistrusts federal intrusion in our local libraries” sentiment. But as an author, the extra $ I might make from a USA PLR fund just aren’t worth it to me, considering the logistical and civil libertarian concerns I have. And I honestly feel, monetarily and otherwise, that I owe public libraries a great deal more than they could ever owe me. Thanks for your blog!

6. Jane Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

   6 I love you Karen but I would appreciate if you would stop with the “You Americans” perjorative. Surely from the election you would realize that we are a wildly diverse population. Yes, capitalism is the underpinning of the US economy. It has been since the origin believing that a free society can only be matched with the free market economy. That’s something I think too difficult to argue in one simple blog post. Library services are a function of taxpayer dollars. It is not, as Tessa Dare, commented designed to function as a benefit for authors. It is a benefit for the community. Library dollars are based on usage. The more patronage, the easier for the library to justify obtaining funds. Libraries, or the free access to literature and learning, are an important part of our society’s belief in freedom. Unless Libraries start charging fees for patronage then the increase in the cost of running the library would come from the already strained budget that each city or state or other govermental entity must balance. It isn’t just providing library services that must be taken into account but whether you cut back on health services for sex education training or you reduce textbook budgets for schools or whether you forgo the infrastructure projects. If the goal of the library is to provide as much access to free literature to the community it serves, then requiring the library to pay a fee to the copyright owner for every item checked out would reduce the ability of the library to achieve that goal. It would, in fact, reduce perhaps the number of staff or the number of items it could purchase. The library is not intended to benefit the author other than to increase awareness of the author’s work and perhaps, as a by product, increase sales. If the libraries purpose was to benefit the author then a fee based system would make sense. But that’s not the purpose. If you want to challenge the purpose of the library, then you would have to make an argument why authors as a segment of the population should achieve a government benefit (a sort of a subsidy) over other professionals. Maybe there is an argument for it, but that’s not what you are advancing in the post. As for “we Americans hate taxes”, I think that’s fairly true for the most part, but we also recognize, at least many of us do, that paying taxes is part and parcel of the contract that we have with society.

7. Anon76 Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

   7 Personally, I like our library system in the US, both as an author, a reader and a citizen. (Though I do wish we could scratch out a bit more funding for them.) I can’t even begin to list the benefits I’ve personally recieved from the vast network of libraries in and around my area. They are true champions of reading and the continued diversity of reading materials. And if such royalty charges were leveled against borrowing books, then what about “used” book stores? And what about “used” clothing purchases, or appliances, or cars, and on and on? Wouldn’t the originators of those items also be entitled to a continued cut, since in essence, these are their “babies”? Personally, I see such levying as against the greater good. Against what could be considered a “social” service to our less affluent citizens. And please don’t consider that I think the “pirating” of books in any way, shape or form, falls into the same category. To me, that’s like someone swiping a truck load of stereo systems and selling them in back alleys. Pure theft. Okay, that was my take.

8. Sheryl Nantus Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

   8 I’ve been lucky enough to receive a check from my homeland (Canada) for this program – and I should point out that it’s a bit of a lottery system where they take a random sample of the books in their system and THEN cut the check. AFAIK it’s not guaranteed that you get a check every year, or even all that much since it’s a random sampling of libraries across the country. carry on.

9. Marianne McA Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

   9 Worth mentioning, perhaps, that some of the major radio stations in the UK – Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and BBC local radio, are public service broadcasting, so that analogy looks different from a UK point of view. That is, those radio stations aren’t in business to make money, and don’t sell advertising, but no-one would argue that they therefore shouldn’t pay royalties to musicians.

10. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    10 Jane, what I suspect someone is going to bring up soon is that these PLR funds are separately allocated at the national level, and don’t come from individual library budgets. But I agree that PLR basically amounts to a government subsidy for authors. I can see how a subsidy makes sense in, say, Sheryl’s homeland of Canada – where Canadian authors are likely struggling in their own home market, due to the abundance of US books available. And I can understand how the Canadian government would decide, it’s a benefit to all Canadians to support Canadian authors and make sure our voices are represented, and therefore we will give our authors this subsidy. But I don’t know that we have a similar rationale in the USA. Marianne, here we come to another breakdown in that analogy. Radio broadcasts are broadcasts, going out to millions of people. Public performance is different from lending, in which an item is circulated to one person at a time. If a library (here in the States, anyhow) wants to show a film to a group at a library program, legally they are supposed to pay for a copy with public performance rights. And now I’m curious as to whether there’s a PLR fund for musicians or actors in the UK? I’d assume UK libraries also lend out CDs and DVDs, just as US libraries do.

11. Dee Tenorio Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    11 Having read this post and all the comments, I think the one thing no one is discussing is why imposing a system like this really is such a monumental undertaking. You’re not talking about switching something with a flip. You’re talking about completely reworking the entire structure of every library system in the country. There are profit businesses that don’t update their outdated systems because the expense is too high–purchasing tracking software or tools for each library, training in using it, applying the information to a central source which will require storage servers, which will have a cost as well, plus the expense of parsing that information. For non-profit groups, like libraries, it’s cost-prohibitive. I don’t know if that sounds reasonable because–and no offense here–the UK is considerably smaller than the US geographically, but the prospect of correlating several million libraries (particularly at one time) is mind boggling. It’s just a simple fact, the bigger the project, the more money it will cost to implement. And in this case, it is not money that will return to the libraries or the tax payer. As a tax payer and a writer, I’d consider it an unnecessary expense at the moment. Like when morons out here decided to change the exits on freeways to numbers so they could match the east coast. That’s the cost of signage, the manpower to take down old ones and replace with new ones and the expense of getting rid of the old ones. So they could put numbers on the exits that no one out here uses because we all still require the name of the exit to know where we’re going. Basically, it’s busy money that I’d rather see go to school programs or to hospitals (which we have virtually none of anymore in SoCal). Keep in mind, CA is currently in complete financial crisis, cannot balance it’s budget and has virtually no way to get back on it’s feet. I don’t know if a state can declare bankruptcy, but I’m worried we’re going to find out. Meanwhile, businesses are failing everywhere, unemployment is skyrocketing and our schools are informing us that they’re in danger of shutting down within the next year because of all the cuts in their funding. There’s just bigger things to put the money toward.

12. vein Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    12 I think people are discussing something they know very little about. Which isn’t surprising I think I was the person who first raised the existence fo this scheme over on DA. The UK system gives a fairly nominal fee (problably less than a penny per lend) but it is better than nothing and costs the libraries nothing. It isn’t being provided instead of foster care or hospitals for kittens–and it is keeping a few authors of socially important works (the kind librarians like to buy) above the poverty line. If we are making a list of priorities why ditch this one but subsidize politician’s consumption of hard liquor, support pork project constituency bribes, million dollar logos and jaunts to Hawaii? Please. That sense of priorities is the very reason US government is the least efficient of any nation. I mean, 16% of GDP for healthcare (a full 6% above the next most expensive nation) but no money for condom programs? Cancelling assisted preschool despite its proven effects in producing self-sufficient citizens from our worst ghettos? I despair.

13. West Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    13 How come Americans seem to be desperately fretting over every tax dollar and be utterly unable to manage the services other nations consider a basic necessity? Sparky, I’ve been saying since I was a teenager (years before I had to pay taxes) that of all the “functioning” or “industrialized” countries, we in the US have one of the lowest overall tax rates, and yet we bitch the most about it. My comment pissed my parents off to no end. But then I got older, started paying more attention, and discovered why. Our tax dollars are so horribly misspent by our politicians. It’s made us leery of changes to our systems, and yes, selfish with giving them more. It’s amazing how our tax dollars are wasted sometimes (I’ll admit I don’t know how taxes work in the UK). For example- a few years ago, in AZ, where I live, our govenor did a budget override to the tune of 350 million dollars- for what, you might ask? Improving our education system (of which we have one of the worst in the country)? Nope. More money for our welfare system (which is being eaten alive by illegal immigrants)? Nope. To repave *all* the highways in the state with rubberized asphalt, including those which had previously been repaved with standard asphalt (for basic repairs). And the reason for this? To reduce the noise level of driving. Literally. She thought that vehicles were “too loud” driving over the streets. And that’s just one example. And things like that are part of the reason Americans don’t want to pay more taxes. Now personally, I have no problem paying more taxes for a few programs that benefit people. I’m all for UHC, and this library plan is, to me, fantastic. I’m not strictly a capitalist, and I don’t see socialism, especially in when tempered with capitalism, as a terrible threat to my country. I’m all for it, actually. But my country needs to start spending its taxes more wisely.

14. Dee Tenorio Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    14 I think the point that really should be made, as Vein points out, is that we do have a priority system. The reason that’s important is that tax payers don’t actually get to decide item by item. Would I pay for someone’s liquor or pork project or a million dollar logo? Hell no. I’d pay for hospitals, schools, road repair and God knows what else. But I don’t get that choice. Just like I won’t get the choice of a PLR coming to my local library. But I can sure as hell say what I prefer and hope someone is listening.

15. vein Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    15 The quickest way to make it happen would be to make a US PLF Foundation and use it to provide candidates with campaign funds. That is dead serious. It is something the likes of RWA could do. Or if someone else did I would drop $100 in it–that is a solemn promise.

16. Dee Tenorio Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    16 Sounds great. But you’ll have better luck with someone else doing it privately. RWA doing anything for anyone of late is about as big a dream as the US going metric.

17. JulieLeto Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    17 I’m not reading the other comments because I know I’m just going to get annoyed. Just want to say to Karen: Word.

18. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    18 When the topic originally came up on SB, I went to the UK and Australian PLR sites and researched it as best I could, to create an informed opinion. I also went to the ALA and LSTA sites and tried to imagine how such a thing could work here. I would restate that for me, this has nothing to do with the money it would cost. I’d love for the federal government to allocate more money for libraries, the arts, and literacy. I still wouldn’t support the idea of PLR. If the US govt. did suddenly allocate a huge chunk of money for promoting literature as a public good, I don’t think giving just our living American authors a yearly bonus check would be the best way of using it. I shudder to imagine a new national bureaucracy with its finger in local library operations. Plus, I find the general underlying rationale for PLR, that “libraries deprive authors of income”, to be unfounded and unfair. It’s not a question of our government prioritizing literature over roads and hospitals, for me. It’s that after research and reflection, don’t think this model would serve the best interests of either readers or authors in the USA. I’m just one person with one opinion, and I understand and respect that others may disagree. If it works in other countries, great! But I take exception to this idea that anyone who opposes a US version of PLR is uninformed, myopic, a slave to capitalism, or possessed of wrong priorities.

19. Emmy Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    19 I’m sorry, but I have issues with having to pay royalties on something that is already paid for. Libraries buy the books. Why pay every time they’re lent out? Should we be charging UBS royalties every time they re-sell a book? Why not, since they’re actually making profits, whereas libraries are strictly non-profit enterprises? What about book swapping sites? Should there be a royalty fee for books swapped there? I know people say that it will cost the libraries nothing, but the money has to come from somewhere, so who gets left holding the bag? The taxpayers, who already paid to buy the book in the first place? Not in, but thanks anyways. capitalism without some form of socialism is just a short rollercoaster ride to economic instability, abject poverty, and a deeper divide between the haves, and the have-nots. Oh crap, I think that ship sailed already. Last I checked, we weren’t in that boat alone. Hows the UK economy doing right now, since they do everything so much better? What was that? They’re in a recession too? Huh. Apparently that dog doesn’t bark. Why does every discussion have to turn into a intercontinental pissing contest for who does what better?

20. Shayne Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    20 As an author, I think I’m willing to give up my annual $234.00 library readers’ fee check in favor of letting the library use the money to get more books. But that’s just me. The system works elsewhere, which is fine. I just don’t care to have the system here.

21. dew Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    21 If I’m not mistaken, most American radio stations are supported by commercial advertising, so they make money, therefore commercial music shouldn’t be free. Since the American library system has been the way it is for so long, I don’t see it changing without lots of controversy. However, why not come up with a rent a book system? If there’s a way that newly published stories would be made available ONLY in the new ‘rental’ libraries, maybe for a certain time, then that might be incentive to rent a book before it goes to the public-free libraries. Think Hollywood movie releases, and how they stagger them out. VHS, then DVD rentals have done quite well before they go to the stores for the customer to buy. But suggesting the royalties come out of US public taxes at this time is IMO the STUPIDEST timing possible! US citizens probably wouldn’t be so shocked at the idea if our economic system wasn’t currently in the potty. Waiting for the rebound would have been MUCH better timing to suggest people pay more in taxes for something that’s not a necessity. But there’s plenty of people waiting in line at the DVD rental stores and RedBox kiosks, and NetFlix is still doing business, even in the economic downfall. Hmmm. I agree with Jane about the ‘You Americans’ tone.

22. kirstensaell Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    22 The radio station analogy stands, in that there are plenty of government funded radio stations out there that don’t take a dime of advertisers’ money, and they still have to pay royalties for the songs they use. So does public television–which although not 100% government funded, is still a not-for-profit enterprise. Video stores pay more for copies of DVDs they intend to rent out than I would for the same DVD purchased for home use. Forgive my ignorance if libraries already do this–being Canadian, I have no idea how the American system works–but why not charge libraries 20% over list price for their books, and deliver that extra money to the author? Wouldn’t that be a compromise everyone could live with? (And yes, I’m aware that means libraries would have to stretch their dollars further. But it would be a hell of a lot easier to implement and less costly to maintain than a royalty system.)

23. vein Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    23 Indeed. The way it works in the UK *is* via purchase price. Just as a US rental store actually does pay more for a DVD than a private user does, a UK library pays a few dollars more per hardback than a private user. We are basically saying actors/studios/hollywood is worth a lot more than writers/publishers/NY. I guess that is just how values are here. Funny how the midlist is being decimated.

24. Marianne McA Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    24 Tessa, if you were just making the philosophical argument, you could abandon the radio stations and look at another model. I know, as a church (non-funded, non profit making) we need to pay a fee for the music we use each year. Just because we’ve bought hard copies of the music doesn’t entitle us to use it freely. I’m not arguing it’s right or wrong, just that the model for paying artists this way already exists in another medium. Emmy: I think the difference is volume. No-one has to pay to sing a chorus (reading your own book), or to teach a friend the chorus (book-swapping), but they do have to pay for certain public uses of the music. Again, I’m not arguing it’s the right thing for the US to do, as regards libraries, just that the idea of paying royalties for certain usages of an item you already own is nothing strange or startling. You can own a High School Musical video, you can watch it with your family, you can sell it at a car boot sale – but you can’t rent a cinema and let the public come and watch it. (At least, you can’t in the UK). So, there’s an argument that if you’re going to buy a book, and let the public come and read it wholesale, (we’re talking 1.5 million loans for the most borrowed book), it’s not unreasonable to bung an extra £6,000 to that author. Again, I’m not saying the US could or should do this: but it’s not an unreasonable system.

25. Karen Scott Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

    25 Author Comment I have to say that I disagree with this approach. And it’s not a matter of paying more taxes. I am all for adding some socialistic values into our capitalism here in the US. But what tax money is out there, it is better spent elsewhere. At this moment in time, I totally agree with you that there are better ways to spend tax money, and that’s the argument that a lot of people would use with a lot of things that are considered arguably non-essential to life and well-being, but I simply don’t see why it has to be an either or scenario, during better economic periods. I’m not even arguing that this should be implemented at all, but the ‘oh no, this’ll never work’ mantra seems to pop up over and over again. Listen, I get that people don’t want to pay higher taxes, because there are so many more important things that the money could be spent on, but the reality is, you could make that argument for almost anything that doesn’t have anything to do with sustaining lives and livelihoods. I love you Karen but I would appreciate if you would stop with the “You Americans” perjorative. You’re right, I think ‘many Americans’ would have been less antagonistic. Radio stations are for-profit enterprises. In England, this doesn’t apply to all radio-stations, who still have to pay royalties, but I get the general point. Most of us librarians think it’s none of the government’s business what our patrons read–and that’s one reason why many libraries keep purposely vague statistics about what gets borrowed, by whom…. Because no such national system exists at the moment, at the very least, establishing PLR here would involve the creation of some national agency to collect statistics–I could easily see that agency then mandating what kind of statistics libraries keep, how we store them, who is able to access them… I just really, really don’t want to go there. Not as a librarian, not as a citizen. A lot of the arguments point to a very deep mistrust of government, which considering the guy who was in before Obama, is fully understandable, but I have to say that as much as I and others in this country like to bitch about our government, no matter which party is in power, I tend to trust that they ultimately want to do the right thing for the country. I have to believe that, otherwise, I might as well just up and emigrate. Just veering slightly off-topic, I’ve always been fascinated by the subject of big government vs small government, (In Britain, I think we’ve started using the term ‘nanny state’ more and more), and what I don’t get is why it matters so much. Surely the most important thing is that the government works for its citizens? But as an author, the extra $ I might make from a USA PLR fund just aren’t worth it to me, considering the logistical and civil libertarian concerns I have. So, if it wasn’t for the civil libertarian concerns, this would be a more viable option for you? Library services are a function of taxpayer dollars. It is not, as Tessa Dare, commented designed to function as a benefit for authors. It is a benefit for the community. OK, hypothetical question, what if people simply stopped writing books? What if libraries totally ceased to buy new material, because nothing new was being published? What if? Listen, I know that that’s not likely to happen, but my question relates to whether or not people would be more willing to look at a PLR-type system, in order to get writers writing again? And if it would be viable under those conditions, then why not under any other circumstances? By the way, as unlikely as the above scenario is to occur, to me, it’s not totally inconceivable, what with people apparently reading less and less, the mid-list author section growing larger and larger, with people overall buying fewer books, there may indeed come a time, when writing is no longer a viable career option for anybody. I find the general underlying rationale for PLR, that “libraries deprive authors of income”, to be unfounded and unfair. Strictly speaking, that’s not a rationale I share, actually. My argument isn’t that libraries deprive authors of income, my argument is broadly based on the question of why this system would be such a bad thing? I think you can argue that, without ultimately inferring that the current library system infringes upon the income generation potential of an author. Last I checked, we weren’t in that boat alone. Hows the UK economy doing right now, since they do everything so much better? What was that? They’re in a recession too? Huh. Apparently that dog doesn’t bark. The fact is, Britain as well as many other countries are very closely aligned with the US, and it has been said that when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. Or in this case, America contracted pneumonia, and the rest of the world started coughing, spluttering, and generally throwing up everywhere. Both Britain and America are equally guilty of playing fast and loose with the markets during the boom times, but lest we forget, the credit crisis grew its wings in the States, did it not? If I’m wrong about that, then by all means correct me. If I’m not mistaken, most American radio stations are supported by commercial advertising, so they make money, therefore commercial music shouldn’t be free. So don’t the radio stations not supported by advertising have to pay royalties each time they play a record in the US? But suggesting the royalties come out of US public taxes at this time is IMO the STUPIDEST timing possible! I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest that America implements such a system like the PLR now. Waiting for the rebound would have been MUCH better timing to suggest people pay more in taxes for something that’s not a necessity. OK, you tell me where I specifically said that the US should implement this now? I simply don’t buy the argument that a PLR-like system wouldn’t work in the US. I think this is more about people not wanting to implement such a system, period. We can argue all day about the size of the US in comparison to the other countries who have implemented such a system, but I don’t buy that argument for one second, either. I didn’t buy it as a reason why universal healthcare in the US wouldn’t work, and I don’t buy it now. Why does every discussion have to turn into a intercontinental pissing contest for who does what better? Hmmmm…There are currently well over 1500 posts on this blog Emmy, if you can name me more than five discussions where comparisons of different countries’ ways of operating were made, I’ll be mightily impressed.

26. Shiloh Walker Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    26 I don’t really have much to contribute to the general discussion, authors getting paid for library copies. Libraries buy MILLIONS of books and royalties are paid from those. However, I can see the appeal of it from an author standpoint. But I have to say… A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION???? Um. Okay. Sorry, but that is insulting.

27. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    27 Marianne, in each one of your examples (church music, etc.), there’s an element of public performance. You can own a High School Musical video, you can watch it with your family, you can sell it at a car boot sale – but you can’t rent a cinema and let the public come and watch it. (At least, you can’t in the UK). Exactly. A library can’t stage a performance of a play in its collection, or read aloud the latest bestseller to a crowd, or hold a public viewing of a DVD unless it has paid for public performance rights. But a book can only be in one person’s hands at one time, and that’s what makes book lending different. If you want to draw a comparison to music, the only act truly analogous to an author’s book being lent by a library is a musician’s CD being lent by a library. And in the UK, the musician gets no PLR payment (I looked it up). In response to Karen: I simply don’t buy the argument that a PLR-like system wouldn’t work in the US. I think this is more about people not wanting to implement such a system, period. Absolutely true. We could do it, I’m sure. I hope we won’t, at least not by the UK model. And that’s not because I’m stingy–I mean, I’m one of the people who would theoretically benefit from it. So, if it wasn’t for the civil libertarian concerns, this would be a more viable option for you? Potentially. The Australian PLR method doesn’t count circulations, they count the number of copies owned and give a per-copy payment to the author. This would be very easy to do in the USA simply by using existing catalogs, and would alleviate a lot of my concerns about feasibility and government interference. I wouldn’t rail against it, but I still don’t think it would be the best use of the money. Part of the stated rationale for the Australian program is to encourage Australian creative efforts, ostensibly because they are competing with English-language books from England, the US, etc. I don’t know that we really need to do that here in the USA, where our national authors are the market majority. What I just really don’t get is this attitude that libraries are somehow undercutting author’s livelihoods or giving them the shaft. I honestly believe that the more copies of my books make it onto library shelves, the better my sales will be. It’s free advertising. I’d get copies of my books on every library shelf in America, if I could. Authors, your librarian is your friend!

28. Marianne McA Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

    28 Tessa, granted, no analogy is perfect. Are you saying that the moral difference between the cases is the way the work of art is transmitted? That is, if I write a song, and you afford the public access to it by singing it, I’m entitled to royalties. And if I write a book, and you afford the public access to it by reading it aloud, I’m entitled to royalties. But if I write a book, and you afford the public access to it by loaning it out, I’m not entitled to royalties. So really, it’s that something special happens during the act of performance – perhaps that the performer in some sense has to temporarily ‘own’ the material in order to transmit it – and it’s that ’something special’ that we should pay royalties for? Which would explain why we don’t feel we should pay artists for showing their works in museums, because, even though a crowd of people might simultaneously view the work of art, there’s no intermediatary involved. Is that the argument?

29. joanne Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:28 pm

    29 I think you may have missed one of the most important posts on the SB’s blog. It was from robinb and it was almost last. She linked to a position statement on this subject by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/p1/PublicLendingRigh.htm It’s worthwhile to read the whole thing, but I’ll just post a small piece: “IFLA does not favour the principles of ‘lending right’, which can jeopardize free access to the services of publicly accessible libraries, which is the citizen’s human right. IFLA endorses freedom of access to information, and will continue to resist all circumstances that could hamper this access. Public lending is essential to culture and education and should be freely available to all. It is in the public interest that lending not be restricted by legislation or by contractual provisions such as licensing. While the cultural and social support for authors that most existing PLR schemes provide is indeed laudable, the justification usually given for PLR – that the use of copyright works through public libraries detracts from primary sales – is unproven. In fact, lending by publicly accessible libraries often assists in the marketing of copyright works and encourages sales.”

30. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 4th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    30 Marianne, so sorry. I’m not a copyright expert. And I actually didn’t mean to make any moral arguments either way, just point out that it’s considered different from a legal standpoint. I’ll ask my friend Courtney, who I know will know why that is. Joanne, thank you! I had indeed abandoned that thread before that was posted, but that IFLA statement is the perfect summary of everything I was trying to say, only I said it much less efficiently. Do I get to say “Word” now? Seriously, librarians will go to the mat to protect every person’s right to read what they choose and have access to the widest variety of books and other materials available.

31. Courtney Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 12:21 am

    31 Okay, Tessa rang me up. The distinction between a radio playing a song and a library lending a copy is just a legal one. The copyright statute, at least in the U.S., says what you can’t do with a copyrighted work without permission. You can’t copy it (obviously) or make a derivative work. You also can’t perform it. This is simply a matter of statute. In the US, however, there is also a strong doctrine in the US called the doctrine of first sale, which says that if you sell a copyrighted good, you’ve exhausted your rights to control that good–and thus, the person you sold it to can resell it, even if you told her not to do so. She can even lend it out, even if you told her not to do so. It’s just the way the law works–if you have an actual physical copy of things, you can do whatever you want with that actual physical copy–anything except copy it, make a derivative work, or perform it. That’s why you need a license to perform on the radio but not to lend a book in a library. (The radio problem is tricky enough that there are now compulsory licensing in radio.) Now whether that is a moral distinction that *should* be drawn is another question. But I think Tessa’s point is that the existence of compulsory licensing in radio is a legally different beast, independent of any moral qualms. Away from Tessa’s point: Personally, I think it’s a morally different beast. I have no problem with something like PLR, so long as it is not understood to establish a moral “lending” right. Someone who started their own for-profit lending library in the UK would not have to pay PLR to authors. PLR is a government program designed to support authors, not a government program designed to recognize that authors deserve money because their books are borrowed. It would be nice as an author if the government wrote me a check because my book was borrowed at the local library. But I don’t feel as if it’s something I deserve. Seeing this all through a moral lens–that is, seeing it as indicative of a lending right for authors–would have deep moral complexity about the scope of copyright, and the control authors have over their work, and I would find that deeply troubling.

32. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 12:48 am

    32 Thank you, Courtney! I knew you’d have the answer. And Marianne and Karen, I don’t think I ever answered either of you when you both essentially asked, “What’s so awful about an author getting extra money from the government?” – Nothing, in the abstract. I just don’t like this method. If a government wants to recognize authors’ contribution to society and cut them a check, great! But please don’t justify it by making the unfounded argument that libraries are costing authors income, or by creating these licensing/royalty schemes that would reinvent our copyright law and potentially impact the quality of service libraries provide. That’s where I start gnawing my cuticles.

33. Steph Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 6:49 am

    33 I’m personally not educated enough about the PLR system to have much of an opinion one way or another, but this little bit of your post: “Of course, that’s the problem right there isn’t it? A world where everybody benefits seems to be a distasteful concept in America. Capitalism all the way, isn’t that the US mantra these days?” I found irritating. First of all, “These days” is sort of a strange way of describing our attitude towards a system that’s been the “US mantra” since the late 19th century. And as a little history lesson, we’ve had “some form of socialism” in place to combat some of the adverse effects of pure capitalism (particularly the uneven distribution of wealth) since the early 20th century when we realized that the 19th century was pretty f***ed up and we needed to do something about it. We got even more welfare programs during and after the Depression, and most of them are still in place and are bankrupting the government. The reasons Americans are so skeptical of putting too many socialist systems in our capitalist country is that many of our welfare programs are costing us far more than we can afford to keep up with. (Social Security in particular, where a lot of the younger generation is paying taxes to a system that will most likely never end up benefiting them when it comes time to use it) It’s not that us elitist capitalist pigs hate the idea of helping those less fortunate, it’s that our current “socialist” systems are wreaking havoc on our economic stability, so adding more is a concept that causes many of us to raise our eyebrows.

34. Karen Scott Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 9:27 am

    34 Author Comment These days” is sort of a strange way of describing our attitude towards a system that’s been the “US mantra” since the late 19th century. What’s your argument here? Would you prefer for me to have used “over a hundred years” instead? Would that have made you feel better? And as a little history lesson, we’ve had “some form of socialism” in place to combat some of the adverse effects of pure capitalism (particularly the uneven distribution of wealth) since the early 20th century when we realized that the 19th century was pretty f***ed up and we needed to do something about it. Once again, what’s the argument here? The history lesson is wasted on me, because I kinda know a bit about US history already. We got even more welfare programs during and after the Depression, and most of them are still in place and are bankrupting the government. OK, so are you saying that you don’t like your tax payer dollars to go towards a welfare state, because the money will never be enough, so why keep paying for something that bleeds money? It’s not that us elitist capitalist pigs hate the idea of helping those less fortunate, Hmmm, generally speaking, if you’re an elitist capitalist pig, then actually, you do hate the idea of helping those less fortunate. it’s that our current “socialist” systems are wreaking havoc on our economic stability, so adding more is a concept that causes many of us to raise our eyebrows. Well, I guess it depends on which particular window you view the world through. If you’re out of work, and struggling to feed your family, then I think the helping hand is probably not sneered at. If the socialist systems are wreaking havoc on your economy, is your answer to do away with them, or is this really about government mismanagement? Are you arguing that socialism doesn’t work? Or is it really about getting the socialism/capitalism balance right, and spending wisely?

35. Gennita Low Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    35 What Jane said.

36. Angela Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    36 I came here to reply to the topic of PLR. But I agree with everything Jane said about that, so I’m not going to really rehash that. The other thing I wanted to address was the tone of the post which suddenly just struck me as very disparaging of Americans. Of course, that’s the problem right there isn’t it? A world where everybody benefits seems to be a distasteful concept in America. Capitalism all the way, isn’t that the US mantra these days? A world where everyone benefits is not distasteful to most Americans. And to group us all together with a select few that have no idea how to manage money and make the betterment of society a priority isn’t right, nor fair. (Yes, I realize the world isn’t fair – that’s not my point though ) As I’m sure you realize in your own government – we also have no say over where every penny goes. I find it extraordinary that a country with such laudable and lofty ideals about its people and public is so backward and byzantine when dealing with a system that has been considered vital to civil and social life by so many for so long. Word, Grace, whoever-you-are. So, we’re backward and Byzantine for not wanting to jump into implementing a system that we really know nothing about? Like Tessa I have deep seated issues with letting government further into my life – and letting them having access to my personal library loaned records is not something I think they have any right to, nor reason to need. I’m not having a knee jerk reaction to anything here, but I definitely have concerns about this that need to be addressed. And as Jane stated I like the way our library system works – what with having a lot of books available to a lot of people. That is something I don’t want to lose. I’m just going to quote a small part of Jane’s post because it sums up how I feel about our library system which fed my love of reading for many years. If the goal of the library is to provide as much access to free literature to the community it serves, then requiring the library to pay a fee to the copyright owner for every item checked out would reduce the ability of the library to achieve that goal. It would, in fact, reduce perhaps the number of staff or the number of items it could purchase. Reducing the number of items a library could purchase hurts my heart. As for the tax issue that came up in several places, I have to say that of course we hate taxes. Who doesn’t? But the issue, for me, isn’t how much I’m paying in taxes, it’s how much I’m paying in taxes and what my society is getting out of it. It’s not that I’m not willing to pay for more societal gain; it’s that I’m already struggling – even before the ‘recession’ I could not afford to live in the city where I work without a room-mate – and my government spends money haphazardly with few checks and balances. No one is sitting there saying: “This is a stupid way to spend millions of dollars.” Or if they are, they aren’t being listened to. That’s what I have a problem with when it comes to taxes. I have a problem with our government bailing out certain businesses that can’t seem to keep themselves afloat – and yet those same businesses decide that it’s a good idea to buy a new jet. AND for the executives to give themselves a bonus. I think that my distrust in how the government spends money is well founded, and I don’t think that it’s at all unreasonable for me to question something that would take billions of dollars to implement. A lot of the arguments point to a very deep mistrust of government, which considering the guy who was in before Obama, is fully understandable, but I have to say that as much as I and others in this country like to bitch about our government, no matter which party is in power, I tend to trust that they ultimately want to do the right thing for the country. I have to believe that, otherwise, I might as well just up and emigrate. Just veering slightly off-topic, I’ve always been fascinated by the subject of big government vs small government, (In Britain, I think we’ve started using the term ‘nanny state’ more and more), and what I don’t get is why it matters so much. Surely the most important thing is that the government works for its citizens? The mistrust of government in the US is not something new. This goes back to when our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights – which protects us from tyrannical government rule to this day. (And I could get into a whole sub-topic on this, but I’ll refrain) It is not solely to do with George W. Bush, and likely will continue far into the future. I understand the antagonism towards him, but really he didn’t run this country into the ground all by himself. Plenty of people, government officials, and businesses should be held accountable as well. And I surely hope that people don’t expect President Obama to be able to fix everything all by himself either. Back to the PLR for a moment. I do understand that you’re not saying that this should be implemented; you’re just questioning the knee-jerk reaction that says it can’t be done. I personally think that it would benefit far fewer than it would hurt, and I’d be interested in knowing what exactly the benefit would turn out to be for the author. It is something I’d look at and research more, but I don’t believe that what I’ve read about it so far sticks to my own beliefs on what a library is, and who it’s for.

37. Marianne McA Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    37 Thanks, Tessa. And thanks, Courtney – kind of you to take the time to explain. Really enlightening, thanks.

38. Adra Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    38 Hhmm… Very interesting discussion. Thank you for stimulating my mind so early in the morning. Let me add another angle to this topic. I don’t know how things are in other countries but I do know how things work here in Canada so I will speak just for my country and what I know of the US market. I have to say that out of all the major English speaking countries, Canada is the worst place for getting published. When I entered my Creative Writing course at University I was told that writing in Canada is pretty much a hobby and not to expect to make a living out of it. And true enough, most of our top writers are affiliated with Universities either by being Professors or former Professors and their publications are largely supported by those institutions. At this time there are less than 10 literary agencies in the WHOLE country, with 3 of them taking only film/play manuscripts, and five of them not taking on ANY new clients. I will mention only in passing the snobbery that exists within these agencies who consider only academic literary works worthy of their time. So yes, in my country, the PLR program is not only needed but essential to keeping the writing industry afloat. Otherwise, authors would have nothing to gain from performing their craft. In the United States, the publishing/printing/literary industry is not only HUGE but is also thriving. Authors have many avenues and resources to get themselves published; and if they are good, to make it big. Even though authors might not get royalties form libraries, their system allows them to make a living writing. (some make quite a nice living too) I’m sad to say that from the way things look, their system works out much better for the authors than ours. Now I understand that things get blurry when it comes to international publications. But that’s for international law to take care of.

39. Bonnie L. Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    39 The mistrust of government in the US is not something new. This goes back to when our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights – which protects us from tyrannical government rule to this day. (And I could get into a whole sub-topic on this, but I’ll refrain) It is not solely to do with George W. Bush, and likely will continue far into the future. I understand the antagonism towards him, but really he didn’t run this country into the ground all by himself. Plenty of people, government officials, and businesses should be held accountable as well. And I surely hope that people don’t expect President Obama to be able to fix everything all by himself either. Thank you for putting this into the words I couldn’t. I think that many Americans have a very cynical view about the people who are elected into office. As far back as I can remember, this has been so. Sadly, I think that most Americans vote in the candidate who they think will harm them the least, knowing that you can’t make it in Washington without owing more to other groups than to your constituency.

40. Steph Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    40 I wasn’t saying that we should do away with them, I’m saying that your post made it sound like we’ve had a purely capitalist system in place, which hasn’t been the case for a long time. And since we’re having a hard time maintaining the welfare systems we do have, I’m saying that many of us think we should fix, not get rid of, the systems we have in place before we get any more. In fact, I would make the argument that trying to take on too many more would be somewhat irresponsible. If we’re going to have socialist systems, we need to be able to sustain them. I was also saying that Americans as a population are not heartless capitalist pigs. I don’t think you understand either our system, the particular financial problems we’re having or the population of our country itself, and you’re making some pretty strong judgments without all the facts.

41. Karen Scott Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    41 Author Comment don’t think you understand either our system, the particular financial problems we’re having or the population of our country itself, What part of your system don’t you think I understand? and you’re making some pretty strong judgments without all the facts. OK, I’m assuming you have all the facts, so I invite you to enlighten me with them.

42. Julia Sullivan Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    42 As an author in the US, I like the idea that my books will sell to public libraries–that’s enough of a cushion to me. I think it would be hard to introduce the PLR at this point, because public libraries here are struggling.

43. Steph Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    43 I love it when people ignore most of a post to pick on one or two things. I’m not sure which “facts” led you to say this: Of course, that’s the problem right there isn’t it? A world where everybody benefits seems to be a distasteful concept in America. Capitalism all the way, isn’t that the US mantra these days? Well, as it happens, I’m all for capitalism, but I think capitalism without some form of socialism is just a short rollercoaster ride to… That’s where I think you’re a little shaky on your argument.

44. Karen Scott Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    44 Author Comment I love it when people ignore most of a post to pick on one or two random things. I’m not sure which “facts” led you to say this: You mean like you’ve done? Because you know, it seems to me that you’ve also pretty much ignored all my other comments re my stance. As for what I wrote, what’s wrong with it? It does seem to me, from the things I know about the apparently mixed economy in the US, to opinions that I hear from all the major networks, and the media (opinion polls and all) that the concept of socialism (regardless of the fact that you guys do indeed have a welfare state) seems to be a dirty word in the US. Are you telling me that this isn’t so?

45. Steph Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    45 You mean like you’ve done? Because you know, it seems to me that you’ve also pretty much ignored all my other comments re my stance. True enough. As for what I wrote, what’s wrong with it? It does seem to me, from the things I know about the apparently mixed economy in the US, to opinions that I hear from all the major networks, and the media (opinion polls and all) that the concept of socialism (regardless of the fact that you guys do indeed have a welfare state) seems to be a dirty word in the US. Are you telling me that this isn’t so? Absolutely true, we do not want to convert from Democracy to Socialism. Does the fact that we prefer that system make us heartless with regards to suffering? Absolutely not. We’re opposed to socialism as a system of government. You show us a program that is effective that will help those in need, I don’t think you’ll find much opposition, but from what many of us have seen of some socialized systems, we’re not big fans. Does that mean that “A world where everybody benefits [is] a distasteful concept in America”? Of course not. one can dislike socialism in general but still care about those suffering. Look, I’m sorry I derailed your discussion so much. Truthfully, I have nothing against the PLR system specifically as I know nothing about it. Those remarks just bothered me.

46. joanne Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    46 Holy crap! I think if you watch a lot of FoxNews you’ll get that impression. There are 300 million of us. We are not all, or even mostly, dittoheads. Saying we don’t think it is in the interest of the public at large to pay authors a stipend for the privilege of borrowing their (previously paid-for) books, doesn’t necessarily makes us a bunch of right-wing pinko-haters. All it means is that we don’t agree that we should adopt this policy. That’s all. And yes, to me it does seem a little bit like welfare for authors. The libraries bought the books. The authors were paid. If authors want to be paid for having the books borrowed, shouldn’t they pay the library for the rental of the shelf-space and stocking fee? After all, it costs money to run the library, an no one would borrow the book if the library didn’t stock it.

47. Rosemary Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    47 Seems to me there is some major misunderstanding over what PLR is and is not. First off it does NOT come out any library’s budget. The money comes from a central, national office. Authors are NOT paid every single time a book is ever borrowed from a library. A representative number of libraries from across the country report their circulation numbers. These libraries are switched every year in an effort to make sure over time that reporting reflects borrowing nationally. A regional author might dominate in their home area for example. Yes it makes a little extra work for libraries but for ONE year, and given the number of libraries the need to report can’t come around very often. Most libraries theses day have their collections and circulation computerised so reporting isn’t the onerous task it would have been thirty years ago. For those of you who seem agitated over the privacy issue , (and I do understand that it rather bothers me that the Federal Government now has the right to subpoena my library borrowing, and amazon purchases) libraries don’t report who borrowed the books, just the number to times it was checked out. There is a ceiling as to how much an individual author can earn in a given year.(It’s £6000 this year I think) which makes it a possible nice sum for many mid list authors and a nice addition to what is most often a very modest income. Most authors do not receive anywhere near the maximum. Also no author receives it automatically, they have register to apply for it. IMO it’s a fine way for a government to support authors, books and literacy.

48. Karen Scott Posted: Feb 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    48 Author Comment Does the fact that we prefer that system make us heartless with regards to suffering? Absolutely not. We’re opposed to socialism as a system of government. Listen, I concede that my language was rather inflammatory, but in case you missed it, nowhere in this discussion did I talk about having a purely socialist government, because that way lies madness. Capitalism on its own does not work, socialism on its own does not work, and as nice as the concept of communism is on paper, that doesn’t work either. I’m somebody who, generally speaking, likes balance, and in my opinion, I think it’s impossible to govern from a capitalistic point of view, without adding the extra rung on the ladder to give struggling people a leg up. You show us a program that is effective that will help those in need, I don’t think you’ll find much opposition, but from what many of us have seen of some socialized systems, we’re not big fans. Surely that’s due to flagrant mismanagement, rather than it being a framework that doesn’t work, period? Look, I’m sorry I derailed your discussion so much. Not at all, it’s always nice to have a rousing debate every now and then. Those remarks just bothered me. That’s ok, if the boot had been on the other foot, I’d have probably been annoyed too. But in my case, anything that annoys me becomes blog fodder, so it’s all good.

49. Miki Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:40 am

    49 First off it does NOT come out any library’s budget. The money comes from a central, national office. It seems naive not to believe that some of the money currently being apportioned to libraries would be redirected to the creation and maintenance of a “central, national office”. I believe the end result would be the same – less money overall being directed to the library system. The mistrust of government in the US is not something new. Finally, someone says it! Have people forgotten? Obama is *lowers voice to whisper the dirty word* a politician. That says “compromised” to me, no matter who it is. The difference is only in what special interests they serve. IMO. I for one don’t think the “government” is required or should be responsible for all aspects of our society. I’ve never been a big fan of expecting the government to sponsor “the arts”. Last year, our local library was encouraging everyone to write and insist the state reinstate some funding that was pulled. But at the same time, police and fire recruiting classes were being cut. I love to read. I want everyone else to have the opportunity. But I think we sometimes have to go with human needs and trust in philanthropy to supply the extras. I couldn’t justify writing those letters to my congressmen. On the other hand, I made sure to include my local library in my charitable giving that year.

50. kirstensaell Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:05 am

    50 Absolutely true, we do not want to convert from Democracy to Socialism. I’m going to nitpick here and just remind everyone that socialism can function within a democracy (and does in countries like Denmark). Even communism could coexist with democracy–with appropriate checks and balances. Democracy is a political system for choosing leaders. Socialism is an economic system for deciding allocation of public dollars. There are countless permutations available when marrying the two concepts. Finally, someone says it! Have people forgotten? Obama is *lowers voice to whisper the dirty word* a politician. That says “compromised” to me, no matter who it is. Problem with democracy is the people who end up in charge are the ones who really really want to be in charge, and they’re almost always the absolute worst people to actually have in charge of anything. I’d attribute this quote if I could just remember who the heck said it: “Democracy is the worst possible system out there–except for all the other ones.” And I still think this whole issue could be resolved by charging more for books sold to libraries than for those sold to the general public–same as DVDs used for rentals. It wouldn’t even have to be a lot more–a few bucks above list price. No one needs to track anything, no one needs to report anything.

51. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:58 am

    51 And I still think this whole issue could be resolved by charging more for books sold to libraries than for those sold to the general public–same as DVDs used for rentals. It wouldn’t even have to be a lot more–a few bucks above list price. No one needs to track anything, no one needs to report anything. I’m sorry, Kirsten, but I don’t see how this would benefit authors at all. Libraries have a finite amount of money to spend – if you raise the cost of the book, they will buy fewer copies. Period. Fewer sales = less royalties, and no net monetary gain for the author. All it would mean is fewer books for the public and less readership for the author. Everyone loses. Here’s a highly oversimplified example. Say a large library system plans to buy 100 copies of a new hardcover bestseller at the cover price of $20 each. (Libraries don’t buy books at cover price, they buy from distributors at wholesale and the authors still get a royalty based on the cover price. But just for the sake of an easy example…) So that library spends $2000 ($20 x 100) total, and the author gets a 15% royalty, for a total of $300. Okay, so say we raise that price to $22 for libraries, under the (IMO false) assumption that library lending negatively impacts sales. The library system doesn’t have any more money than it did before. They’re just going to buy 91 copies instead of 100. $22 times 91 = $2002. At a 15% royalty, the author gets…$300.30. (There’s no way that whole extra $2 would be passed on to the author. If the [specious] argument is that libraries hurt sales, then publishers would want their cut too. I’m sure the actors and screenwriters don’t see more than pennies of that extra fee on rental DVDs.) Okay, so not only is the author making no extra money (30 cents notwithstanding), but there are 9% fewer copies of her book on the library shelves. Nine percent fewer readers = Nine percent fewer new fans, nine percent fewer chances to grow a mailing list, nine percent fewer times a passerby might see the book in a borrower’s hand and ask, “What’s that you’re reading? Is it good?” As an author, I would not consider that a good trade-off for my extra $0.30. And the public has 9% fewer books in their library. My librarian heart weeps. Not only is it bad public service, but a 9% decrease in library usage would make it even harder to justify our book budgets to whatever local authority allocates them. Maybe next year, the library will only be able to afford 85 copies of the author’s latest release. The author loses again. DVDs have that rental fee because a rental store makes a profit on the DVD, so the studios want their cut. Libraries make no profit on anything. A public library is this: We, as a local community, put our money together and buy some books and share them. That’s all.

52. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    52 Tessa said: “A public library is this: We, as a local community, put our money together and buy some books and share them. That’s all.” Yep, that’s how I feel about it. My funding not only puts books in my hands, but in others. Such as the kid who needs to do a research paper on frogs, or the cash strapped elder whose only means of entertainment is a free read. Mayhaps the reason many of us in the states revere our public library system really does go back to the issue of taxes. They are non-profit entities, and therefore sacred to us in some manner. We know the good they provide and will often fight tooth and nail to preserve them as they stand. As an author, I personally don’t WANT continued royalties from the lending of my books by these institutions. Heck, I’ve given my books to different libraries, one’s I’ve purchased myself for that sole purpose. And…I’ve also given away books I’ve collected from different romance conferences, too. WHY? Because when coupled with my tax dollars, I’m promoting reading in general, and specifically, the reading of my genre. It would break my heart to think that such charitable contributions would then have to be tracked to provide more monies to both myself and the other authors who are basically recieving “free” promo. And yes, public libraries are free promo, no ifs, ands or buts. So I guess I’m now back to, our public library system as it now stands is a “socialist” concept in a democratic reality.

53. kirstensaell Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    53 So I guess I’m now back to, our public library system as it now stands is a “socialist” concept in a democratic reality. Actually, if the library system is basically a large, centralized book-sharing arrangement, it’s more communist than socialist. Tessa, you sound very doom and gloom. Me, I’m not so sure how worried I am about the author who has her 100 copies reduced to 91. It would make me cringe more to consider the author whose 2 copies are reduced to 0, but whatever. (And if libraries get books at wholesale, then you can amend my idea to $2 over wholesale.) I can’t imagine the government passing legislation to increase what libraries pay without also legislating a corresponding increase in funding. But maybe I’m naive, and implementing such a scheme would bankrupt libraries while putting authors out on the street to beg for food and live in cardboard boxes (I’m being melodramatic). I admit, being Canadian, I assume governments are more likely to raise funding for intitutions that get hit with higher costs (especially ones incurred by decisions of the government, heh) than they are to curtail their budgets or leave them twisting in the wind. But the American reality could be entirely different. Like I said, being Canadian, I’m probably naive.

54. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    54 Kirsten, I don’t mean to sound like it would be the downfall of libraries. But it surely wouldn’t help them at all. And if you think it through, it doesn’t benefit the authors. So why would I want do it? It’s easy to say “Ooh, a yearly check for $250! Sure, gimme!” But if you follow the implications of the plan through to their conclusions, it ends up as a net loss. Why do it, then? I can’t imagine the government passing legislation to increase what libraries pay without also legislating a corresponding increase in funding. First, there really is no federal funding for US libraries. We have a federal grant program (LSTA), which gives out approximately 50 cents per year, per US resident. Proverbial drop in the bucket. Nearly all public library funding is local. Sadly, I can imagine just such a thing happening, because it happens ALL the time. No Child Left Behind, for example. The federal government passes new requirements for schools, which are locally funded, and then leaves them without any money to implement them. I’m in a rush, so if this sounds short that’s why…

55. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    55 kirstensael, Nope, down here, just because costs go up does not mean government funding goes up. They aren’t linked in any way, shape, or form…even if it is a government action that requires the increased expenditure. (Go google the “No child left behind” policy.) So basically, to pay the authors the extra would in no way quarantee additional funding to cover said expenditure.

56. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    56 Tessa, Funny how we both picked the same example to express our points. Why? Because it hurt so many citizens at the local level.

57. kirstensaell Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    57 You guys are making me very glad I live in Canada. Not that our system is perfect, but DAMN.

58. Emmy Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    58 What Tessa said. US libraries are funded by state taxes, not federal…and it’s further broken down by counties/cities. That’s why ghettos have no library or small ones with limited selection: nobody is making enough money to provide enough taxes for something better.

59. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    59 Yeah, and see, Kirsten, that’s why some of us our saying that such a payment plan to authors would not be in the best interest of our citizens. First you have the Federal Government with certain rules, then that trickles down to the State level (because we are still allowed to adapt certain things within our own states as long as we don’t want federal funding for said actions), then comes our county governments, and then our city or township governments. And let me tell you, that is all a huge complicated dance. Right now I’m working on setting up a building and business for hubby and I. To do so, I have to appease every one of those trickle elements. Sometimes you have to start from the top and work down, and other times you have to start from the bottom and work up. When some of us express the fact that the PLR system may be terribly hard to implement here, and that we feel it more fair to leave the system as it is, we aren’t just blowing smoke. We know the issues involved, and having thought on them, feel it probably would not work with our “entire” system of government.

60. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    60 Man, I’m late to the game again. What Emmy said!

61. Angela Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    61 A public library is this: We, as a local community, put our money together and buy some books and share them. That’s all. Exactly. And this is what our libraries need to remain. A place giving the most people the most access to reading. Your posts have continued to show every reason why I do not think PLR would be a good thing for libraries and authors in the US. When some of us express the fact that the PLR system may be terribly hard to implement here, and that we feel it more fair to leave the system as it is, we aren’t just blowing smoke. We know the issues involved, and having thought on them, feel it probably would not work with our “entire” system of government. Perfectly put Anon76.

62. Tessa Dare Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

    62 Just to make perfectly clear how our library funding is done “down here”, there is a state component – but at least in the states where I’ve lived and worked, that’s still a relatively small part of a library’s budget. The bulk of funding comes from local property taxes. These may be funneled through a local county or city government, or the library fund may be set up as a separate “millage” that appears on the property tax statement. In those cases, the library is not a city or county government arm, but its own separate entity. This is partly why many times rural areas have the worst libraries–it’s often hard to get farmers who own huge tracts of land to approve a millage like that. In urban situations, the disparity in library services is often more about a lack of supplementary funding from the community. Most libraries have a “Friends of the Library” group that raises extra money for books and programs, and typically the more affluent the area, the more they can raise. Philanthropic giving makes up a vital part of US public library budgets. Aside from the local fundraising, corporate giants from Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates have given hundreds of millions of dollars to fund library buildings, materials, and services. Honestly, without the Carnegie and Gates Foundations, public libraries in the US would be very different, and not in good ways. That’s capitalist greed turning into a public benefit. I’m not saying Canada or the UK should look to us as a model. I’m just saying, our libraries has they exist now have evolved as a reflection of our country’s ideals, its geographic makeup, our government structure, and yes, our economic system. It may seem strange from an outsider’s viewpoint, but it works for us. When some of us express the fact that the PLR system may be terribly hard to implement here, and that we feel it more fair to leave the system as it is, we aren’t just blowing smoke. We know the issues involved, and having thought on them, feel it probably would not work with our “entire” system of government. Exactly. Thanks, Anon76.

63. AReader Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    63 Crikey. I’m so glad I never have to go to the US again.

64. Anon76 Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    64 (Heavy sigh) I’m sorry you feel that way, AReader.

65. Gennita Low Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    65 That’s how I decide on my overseas fun–I check out their library laws.

66. Emmy Posted: Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    66 Traveling overseas….I been doing it wrong? All this time I’ve only checked the legal age of consent. Who knew I had to vet for PLR too?