Wherein UK Authors Get Paid For Books That Libraries Lend Out…
Wednesday, February 4, 2009Posted in: book talk
So, I was surfing round Blogland earlier, trying to catch up, when I came across this discussion over at the Smartbitches blog.
Basically, the discussion was about whether the Public Lending Right (PLR) system, (currently in operation in Canada, UK, Australia, and many other countries) where authors are paid royalties each time their books are borrowed, would be feasible in the US.
Some of the comments were interesting, but as per the universal healthcare discussion, the naysayers seemed to be caught up in the complexities of setting up such a system, rather than the benefits.
This was one of the most annoying comments that I came across, and that’s saying a lot, because there were quite a few:
I don’t think it would be a fair system. How would it be supplemented? By raising taxes? That wouldn’t seem fair to me either. That tax money could be used for better programs, like education or to help kids who are in foster care or in an abusive situation, etc. And, then, if the authors get paid, then shouldn’t the people who volunteer at the library get paid? And….it could go downhill from there. The author gets the initial royalties from the book being purchased. Its not like the books are being *given* to the libraries by the publishers. The author should be honored that their book is even at the library (you’d be amazed how many books I can’t find at my library…and yes, I can request them, but I usually don’t)
I respect the fact that is your livelihood, but, consider it a “charitable work”.
Listen, nobody likes higher taxes, but some of you Americans seem to almost froth at the mouth at the thought of having to pay more for products and services that would ultimately benefit everybody.
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 economic instability, abject poverty, and a deeper divide between the haves, and the have-nots. Oh crap, I think that ship sailed already. Oh well…
This bit boggled my mind somewhat:
And, then, if the authors get paid, then shouldn’t the people who volunteer at the library get paid?
As somebody already said over at the SB’s blog, volunteering usually means that the volunteer doesn’t expect to benefit financially for their industry, whereas authors generally look to get paid for theirs.
As for this bit:
I respect the fact that is your livelihood, but, consider it a “charitable work”.
That comment there really did deserve a ‘Bitch, please!”.
Alas, the above commenter wasn’t alone in her myopia:
The free library lending system is just that (supposedly)- free. If you pay an author royalties everytime someone borrows their book, what is to stop them from requesting royalties when someone lends something from their own home library to a friend. In
I’m pretty sure she’d have a different view if she was a full-time author dependent on royalties to live.
Anyway, one of the commenters tried to ease some of these concerns by offering the following explanation:
PLR does NOT come out of individual libraries’ budgets. And libraries here are nationalised. We have very, very few private libraries, and, as has already been said, university libraries do not carry fiction, except, perhaps, texts which may be studied on degree courses. There is no fuss about the collection or payment of this money, and there are many publishing companies in the UK that exist purely to publish library editions. .
I noticed that this explanation seemed to be largely ignored, because the subject of library budgets kept coming up again and again. As can be seen from this comment:
As good as this idea might sound to writers, in reality, for many libraries, it is not so great. In the UK it has really limited library acquisitions, particularly of new, popular, in demand titles. Compared to US public library collections, UK collections are small, old, out of date, and generally lacking in the popular and in demand titles that fill the shelves of US libraries. And some UK libraries only buy hardcovers (not good for romance authors) – in fact in the UK hardcovers are sold primarily to libraries and most consumers only see trade paperback editions.
Let me just explain for those with limited understanding. The PLR is not paid for by the individual libraries, it comes from national government, so if a library has a poor collection of books etc, the fault does not lie with PLR, but with the individual library/local council who made the assholic budgetary decisions, Ok?
This comment was fairly typical in the discussion:
I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed.
I’ve never really seen the difference between libraries lending out books, and radio stations playing music, I mean, why is it ok for radio stations to have to pay royalties every time they play a record, yet it’s OK for authors to not make a dime from books that are lent out?
If my library buys the book (or 200 to 300+ copies of the book in some cases) then why isn’t that the end of it? You had a product to sell, and we bought it. Anything else seems like speculation.
See my above comparison re music-playing radio stations.
These three comments pretty much summed up my feeling on the whole thing:
In all, around 30 countries have a PLR system in place, so it’s nothing new or unique! Where you might be boggling at the notion of having such a system, other countries might be boggling that the USA doesn’t!
Word, Elizabeth Chadwick.
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.
Imo every time a person suggests that writers should be delighted to ‘write for the honour’ or whatever, they are demeaning the contribution that every writer who has ever lived has made to civilisation.
Word, again to Penny Jordan.
I’m not a writer, but I think if I was, it would probably piss me off that I was treated so differently to musicians and the like. I think that PLR is fabulous, and it at least strives to reward the people who help enrich our lives, in a cultural sense.
What say you?
Tessa Dare
February 6
9:58 am
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.
Anon76
February 6
4:05 pm
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.
kirstensaell
February 6
4:38 pm
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.
Tessa Dare
February 6
4:56 pm
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… 🙂
Anon76
February 6
5:03 pm
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.
Anon76
February 6
5:07 pm
Tessa,
Funny how we both picked the same example to express our points. Why? Because it hurt so many citizens at the local level.
kirstensaell
February 6
5:10 pm
You guys are making me very glad I live in Canada. Not that our system is perfect, but DAMN.
🙂
Emmy
February 6
6:57 pm
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.
Anon76
February 6
7:12 pm
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.
Anon76
February 6
7:14 pm
Man, I’m late to the game again.
What Emmy said!
Angela
February 6
7:27 pm
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.
Perfectly put Anon76.
Tessa Dare
February 6
8:50 pm
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.
AReader
February 6
9:08 pm
Crikey. I’m so glad I never have to go to the US again.
Anon76
February 6
10:09 pm
(Heavy sigh) I’m sorry you feel that way, AReader.
Gennita Low
February 6
10:12 pm
That’s how I decide on my overseas fun–I check out their library laws.
Emmy
February 6
11:02 pm
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?