Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

No, I don’t think it will happen in libraries here.  And, honestly, the whole thing makes me feel kind of icky on the inside.  Of course, I’m not an author missing out on royalties so…..  But, why does it only apply to PUBLIC libraries and not all libraries?  If I borrow your book from the public library, you get a payment, but if I borrow it 50 times from a uni library you get nada?

UK writer here!

Public Lending Right has been going for donkey’s years here, and to some UK writers I think it may represent a significant part of their income.

I don’t get much myself though, because I don’t think UK libraries generally stock many erotic titles, and my loan figures are tiny compared to writers in genres like sagas, general women’s fiction, thrillers, horror, children’s books etc etc.

The most I’ve ever had is about £100 to £120 per year, and mostly much, much less.

I do LOVES the idea of Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport, however.  How do we get one of those???  (Or would that be NEA and NEH?)

Yes,  this is one of the perks of living in a country with high taxes.  Libraries are free for all regardless of income, no joining fees, no lending fees, no subscription.  I hear a lot of comparisons re taxes but for my part I think we get good benefits back. 

I can’t quite believe that you don’t have a similar system?  For real?  This makes me admire even more the good sense of those US authors who like their books to be carried in the libraries because of increased reader exposure,  if they aren’t even getting PLR royalties. Wow.  Gotta be strong minded and long headed.

I’ve no clue how the bookkeeping is done but if you hand the financial responsibilities for collection of fees over to the New York Yankees you can be sure that every cent will be gotten and delivered to the authors. They (NYY) will rip your throat out and put it on the pitcher’s mound if you mess with their trademarks without giving them royalty fees.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport .... I love that.

I live in a small town, in a rural area in the middle of the United States. Our local public library operates on a little over $30,000 a year. That’s the entire budget: new books, magazine subscriptions, internet access, staff wages, toilet paper for the restroom, and everything in between. Total items loaned in the last fiscal year: about 16,500. Now I am assuming that magazines and older books might not count. But still, even if the money is collected someplace else and does not come straight out of the library’s budget, the record keeping would be overwhelming. That’s individual statistics for each book, by title. In a one-room library that can’t afford an automated circulation system. The only reason they have public access computers is through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I’m sure this is a great thing for writers, considering how little most of them make. But, no, I really can’t see it working here.

RobinB: Most uni libraries here don’t stock a lot of fiction, apart from that required for courses (and they don’t even stock most of those, as I found out to my great annoyance). It’s assumed that if you want to read for pleasure you’ll find your local library. Of course, it’s still a little galling if you’re a non-fiction author, but if you’re stocked in a uni library you’re probably an academic, so your main income doesn’t come from people purchasing/reading your book.

Plus, if you’re an academic you probably teach a few classes, which means you can always set your own books, knowing perfectly well there’s only two copies in the library and most of your students will end up buying them!

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”.

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 this country, I can see that snowball growing huge, since we seem to be so lawsuit happy. And some idiot would do that.

We have 2 small local libraries closing as funding didn’t pass this past November. Which is too bad because one is located in a small school and the other at the other end of the city from the main library. This will make it difficult enough for the people who use it to look for jobs, study, read and just generally use the library on a daily basis. Kid’s reading programs????

Libraries are the first thing to go when we do budget cuts especially here in NY. I would rather someone be able to borrow the book and read it for free than no one able to buy it at all. And we have a very decent selection of titles with over 30 libraries in the lending system.

does anyone really go into being an author with the expectation that they will make the money JK Rowling did?

Interesting. I wonder how much library patronage and libraries there are in the US compared to Canada or the UK? It reminds me of the recent movement by Novelists Inc and others for used booksales to include royalty payments.

Of course, we’d love it if we got paid each time a book was borrowed. Really, realistically, why wouldn’t we? But again, realistically it feels too complicated and too fraught to work here. We’re lots bigger than GB. More libraries, more books. And we don’t have that cool Dept of Culture.

I’d like that Dept regardless of royalties because wow.

Libraries have to buy the books, so we get paid. If we’re lucky and lots of people borrow the book, the library has to buy it again—and we get paid. That works just fine for me.

Libraries provide an incredible service, and most do so on a pretty limited budget—and the librarian likely has enough headaches she’s likely being underpaid for already without adding another.

However—the one comment re if authors got paid when the book is borrowed, shouldn’t library volunteers be paid. Key word would be ‘volunteer’. Writers aren’t volunteers.

As a starving author, I kind of went “hot damn!” when i read that…

It’s very interesting to see the cultural diffrences at work here.  Authors campaigned long and hard in the UK for the right to some recompense from library borrowings.  I guess it operates in the same kind of way that a recording artiste gets paid each time their song is played on the radio.  I have been a published author since 1990 and have always received PLR and in that time have seen other countries come on board re this payment to authors.  Germany has long had a PLR system. So have Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Denmark has had such a system since the 1940’s.  New Zealand has one, Australia has one,  Israel has one.  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!

It seems to me that most of the negative comments about PLR are from US authors (or possibly readers) who don’t understand the UK system.  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.  That said, those authors who are published by these companies only earn money when their books are borrowed.  I, for one, am extremely glad that my PLR payment arrives in February, and is frequently as much if not more than my royalty payments.  I write for a living, not for the honour.

Another UK novelist here - PLR was a hard battle fought over many years to recognise the impact on book sales of our very large free public library system.  It does not come from individual library budgets (which come from local taxes, not central government who pay the PLR) and the costs of data collection are low because it simply taps into the computer issuing systems of a sample of library authorities - there is a range of different types of authorities every year. Authors have to register each book and illustrators can also benefit. It also produces very interesting and useful statistics on library borrowing - including highlighting just how popular romance is.

~ I write for a living, not for the honour. ~

You bet.

I can’t believe I had no real idea how usual in other countries this system is now. Nor that it didn’t, in some way, infringe on the individual library’s budget.

I really need to register. Until recently I didn’t have many books in print, but now I need to sort it out.
We have an imprint that produces books almost specifically for libraries - reasonably priced, hardback only - and I know a lot of authors who get most of their income from PLR. Really, £7million is nothing when compared to other costs and although it would be higher in the US, it would still be a relatively small amount.
With bar codes being used and electronic scanning systems every time a book is taken out, it’s a doddle to tot them up at the end of the year. In fact, libraries probably do that anyway. It helps to keep writers writing, after all.

UK library borrowings are all computerised but only a SAMPLE of libraries are used to calculate the PLR due to authors.  As I write Scottish regional sagas it makes a big difference to my PLR when my region is included in the sample.  It has not been included for more than ten years.  There is probably a moral here - expand - but then I enjoy writing my country sagas.

*waves hand in air*

I don’t understand.  Sorry. 

Do I pay a fee when I check out my book at the library?  Do I pay a fee just to have a library card?  Where does the money come from?

I can’t speak to the taxing issue (ha!) because I don’t know how that would work here.  And I certainly can’t hate on authors wanting to get more royalties because if I were an author, I’d probably be right there collecting my check with a grateful smile.  I’m mostly thinking of this from the library angle. 

Fiction vs. Non-Fic:  I’m not sure I was even thinking about Non-Fic when I first asked the question about public vs. other libraries.  But, now that it has been brought up, I don’t know how I feel about the uni libraries don’t have fiction, answer.  I understand what you mean when you say that non fic authors generally don’t make their living from writing the way that fic authors do.  I get that.  But, I still don’t get why the difference.  Why not just make it all libraries?

The other thing is that libraries circulate more than just books.  And, believe me, if authors had this kind of a sweet deal set up, it wouldn’t be long before movie studios would want something similar for dvd circs and musicians would want something similar for cd circs.  I know the individual libraries don’t have it taken from their budget, but the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. 

And it rubs my “First Sale Doctrine” the wrong way.  I love the First Sale Doctrine like I love cookies.  This doesn’t seem to square with that, although there might be a way to make them compatible.

All of that said, again, I can’t hate on authors lobbying to get paid for their work.  Good for you!  As a librarian, I’m just wanting to make sure our interests are covered too.

The solution is simple:

Vote out moron politicians who cut library funds.

Write letters to those thinking of cutting library funds letting them know such cuts are not to be tolerated.

I write too and would love to have even the pittance of a library royalty to augment my tiny income. A couple hundred extra bucks a year would help.

As it is, libraries stock my books and I get a bit from those sales for which I’m grateful.

This issue here is less about whether authors should get a library royalty and more about what the F—do those political SOBs think they’re doing cutting funds to the most important public resources in any given town.

I needed the library growing up since we couldn’t afford to buy books. There were times when we scraped by on crackers and catsup soup. If there hadn’t been a library to escape into, then I’d not be a writer/editor today.

Doing it again now, I’d still need the library because it’s a cinch my poor 21st century parents would not be able to afford a home computer and Internet access.

Speaking as a UK author with very low sales, I ADORE the PLR system. I get paid maybe 10p when one of my original books sells. I get paid 5p when one of my books (including Large Print copies for which I get no royalty payment) is borrowed from the library. In these no-cash-to-spare-on-books days, it is lovely that the govt is paying me for giving free pleasure to someone who can’t afford to buy.

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. 

While I can’t seem to find it right now, I read once that in the US the number of copies that get bought by libraries (the single biggest book market in the US, btw) is much higher than in the UK and there are no limits of how many copies US libraries can by that in the end, authors end up making about the same amount of money, regardless of which country they are in.

f you are published as a UK author, and your book is in libraries in those countries, do you receive a PLR for the borrowing of that book? i.e. if your book is in the library in Sweden, and someone borrows it, do you get a PLR from Sweden if you’re in England? Or is it solely for the library borrowing of a book in the country of which you are a citizen?

Yes, I receive PLR in the countries that have a reciprocal PLR agreement with the UK.  There is a body one can belong to called ALCS - Author’s Licensing and Collecting Society that will pick up and collate foreign PLR for non resident authors. 
As Lynne says, the funding for PLR is a spit in the ocean and for some authors who write for the library market it’s an absolute lifeline.  The amount is capped too at a maximum sum of £6,600 at the moment no matter how popular an author is.  Once set up it is also easy to manage and as Louise said, a useful statistical indicator of who is borrowing what.
This year Ireland has just signed up to a very similar scheme to the UK, so that’s another country on board.

The idea of a PLR system makes a lot of sense when you do think about radio stations…and even bars and restaurants…have to pay fees in order to play music/have a band play music.

I’m not sure where the money would come from in this day and age of trillion-dollar deficits and runaway borrowing from China. Perhaps the solution could be more 19th Century in nature. Have some of the super-wealthy fund such payments through an arts foundation. Used to be rich people donated land to the public, which have now become some of our greatest parks, or created museums, such as the Smithsonian still running today off its own budget, but free to all who wish to visit.

Just a question for either some UK person or an author who might know the answer…is PLR paid only to UK dwellers?  Must you be a citizen of the country in order to benefit? Or are all authors’ works subject to this type of payment? If not, why not?  Would an American author with a book in a UK library only have to register somewhere in order to take advantage?

Curious to know…

I’m a professional writer.  I want to get paid for my work. It’s how I make a living.  If there was a system in place in the US to make this fair and equitable, and not a penalty on local libraries, I’d support it.

I believe I’ve mentioned before that our public library is funded not out of general revenues, but out of a separate tax district.  We’re hurting like everyone else is in these tough times, but we’re much more cushioned than we would be if our county government had to decide between funding libraries and funding fire protection.

To quote the late, great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
“I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization.”

All this and our healthcare is free (at the point of use; I guess we all pay for it via general taxation—and our taxes are still lower than in a lot of European countries). I love the UK!

When I look at the populations of the countries involved, and the number of libraries, I understand that it is a viable system for Europe, former British Commonwealth countries and other smaller countries. I’m not a librarian and I don’t have time to research the statistics, but maybe someone else will…

1) How many libraries in the US?
2) How does that break down per capita to population?
3) How many books are circulated?
4) How does this compare to other countries?

Where 7.4 million in Great Britain might be doable, I’m guessing that figure could go to 7.4 BILLION in the US. With our infrastructure in sad disrepair and states and municipalities (who FUND our library system) scrabbling for money, I don’t see this happening here. As an author, yeah. I think it would be great. But as a realist? I just think the cost is too great, especially since libraries are already losing funding and closing. Finally, why aren’t people like George Soros jumping in to save libraries or create a foundation to put the PLR in place? They have enough money to put comedians in Congress (like we need more of those). At least the Gates Foundation is tackling literacy.

Silver James, I see your point, except if Commonwealth nations do this, that includes Canada and Australia—two of the biggest (geographically speaking) countries in the world. Now, obviously, on a population level, they’re not as unwieldy as the US. But many of the arguments about fixing our crumbling infrastructure seem to deal with our geographical size as well as our population size. And, honestly, if places like Australia and Canada, which have some seriously remote cities and populations, can manage this, why can’t we? Our greater population should compensate for the geographic size of the nation, but obviously that doesn’t work.

(The answer is that Americans refuse to pay more taxes, and taxes pay for the infrastructure. Since we want our cake—‘small’ gov’t—and we want to eat it—the gov’t pays for roads and schools—we can’t have nice things.)

Sadly, there would probably be plenty of money in a state’s budget except…a library is seen as something that doesn’t have a crowd of angry supporters rallying behind it as a cause. But every other item in the budget does…either we are ‘hurting the homeless’ or ‘robbing from the elderly’ or something else when budget cuts are opposed.

A library is a faceless thing that is easy to take money from when a budget has been overtaxed (oh, and what about those yearly salary increases for the state/federal employees? Can’t leave those out!).

Canada and Australia are large, yes, but their populations in comparison to ours are much, much smaller. Also, if you look at Australia, very little of that country is actually developed with roads and bridges…same is true for Canada. There are huge expanses of desert and/or frozen land that is nothing but open space.

All this and our healthcare is free (at the point of use; I guess we all pay for it via general taxation—and our taxes are still lower than in a lot of European countries). I love the UK!

Actually, Rachel, our taxes are lower than the US! I recently obtained an ITIN so that my publishers didn’t have to take 30% tax off me at source.

Do I pay a fee when I check out my book at the library?  Do I pay a fee just to have a library card?  Where does the money come from?

No, no (unless you lose it, and then you have to pay the cost of replacement) and it comes from general taxes.

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.

Why should it do that? PLR has nothing to do with local taxes, which is what pays for library acquisitions. That’s the responsibility of the local council, not central government, which pays PLR. Local councils are all about putting up statues for their personal aggrandisement, it seems to me, or the refurbishment of our town centre seems to indicate that.

JaneyD - word

Li’l—I don’t think anyone answered your question. 

Public Library membership is free in the UK and it’s free to borrow books, and audio books, too.  There is a fee to borrow music and film CDs and DVDs.  We also have free access to computers and the ‘net even in my tiny local library which has wonderful staff and a really good selection of the most up to date books (better than some of the bigger libraries within the same area).

Romance authors are big beneficiaries of this system.

1) How many libraries in the US?
2) How does that break down per capita to population?
3) How many books are circulated?
4) How does this compare to other countries?

Some answers to this can be found in this American Library Association Fact Sheet on Public Libraries:

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/hqops/library/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet6.cfm

I’m an author and a public librarian, living here in the USA.

Purely from a logistical standpoint, I have a hard time seeing how this would work.  Commenters have said above that the libraries in the UK are nationalized, so I’m assuming that there is some national office or organization to collect all this data and then distribute funds accordingly (and a national pool of funds from which to pay).  Public libraries here are not only local organizations, they are locally organized in umpteen different ways, depending on where you live.  There are libraries that are essentially city departments, part of the municipal government.  There are libraries that are county departments.  There are libraries that are independently funded by a property tax millage and governed by a completely separate library board.  Sometimes those boards are elected by the public; sometimes they are appointed by other governments… Some have thousands of employees; others, two.  Anyhow, you get the point.  There’s no such thing as the “typical” public library structure here, and certainly no national standard.  So I’m imagining how this would work…either each of these public libraries, ranging from the very large metropolitan libraries to the itty-bitty rural bookmobiles, would have to compile their own statistics and then make individual payments to publishers—OR, we would need to create a national office charged with sampling and collecting these statistics (and did I mention that libraries use umpteen different programs for collecting them?) and then collecting the $$ and distributing it… yikes.  In practice, I think it would be very hard to implement.

I’m not in favor of it in theory, either, but others have already made the points I’d make on that.

There is a yawning cultural chasm here, not just between the UK and the USA, but between the UK, much of Continental Europe and many other countries (note:  Canada), and the USA.  You can’t really pick out one facet like this, and understand it, without looking at many other aspects of the societies concerned.  For example, Americans probably find it equally extraordinary that we can have expensive and highly skilled medical treatments under the National Health Service without receiving any demand for payment at the end of it:  the treatment is funded by everyone, from National Insurance that is removed from salaries and wages, and other taxes.  We therefore all pay according to our means, and of course some people get more out of the system than they put in, while others are in the opposite situation.
There are still many Brits, French, Germans etc. etc. who believe, as a matter of ideological conviction, that certain things - like health-care, education, libraries, museums - should be free, so that people at all levels of society can have equal access to them and benefit from them.  It helps to close up the rift in society between the haves and the have-nots, to act against the inexorable process whereby the rich always get richer, and the poor, poorer, which is what always happens if you leave things to ‘market forces’, and operate everything on a commercial basis.  And the way in which you fund it is by taxing the incomes of the wealthy much more heavily than those of the poor…
Alas, this ideology it is out of fashion even here, now (since a certain evil woman was Prime Minister in the 1980s and promoted the ‘desirability’ of personal greed and ruthlessness), but we still have some precious remnants of it, legacies of Victorian philanthropy, early 20th-century Liberal government, and 1940s-50s Labour government.
The DCMS (Dept. of Culture, Media and Sport) is not all it should be, though it does its best.  ‘Sport’ should never have been included, for one thing.  For another, it is a ‘second-rank’ government department, that can all too easily be overruled when money is required for other purposes.

some UK libraries only buy hardcovers (not good for romance authors) - in fact in the UK hardcovers are sold primarily to libraries

There are hardcover editions which are primarily published for sale to libraries. Mills & Boon hardcovers are mostly sold to libraries, I think, though you can get some on their website and via Amazon. That doesn’t mean that libraries don’t also buy paperback copies of the same M&B;romances. All the UK local authority libraries I’ve visited have had plenty of paperbacks, in a variety of different genres, and they’ve all had at least one stand of paperback Mills & Boons. In case anyone doesn’t know, Mills & Boon is part of Harlequin and is the main publisher of pure romance in the UK, as although we have chick lit, sagas etc there isn’t so much recognition of romance as a genre as distinct from “romantic fiction.”

Re whoever was asking about can you obtain PLR if you are published in the UK but not resident in the UK.  Answer is no.  You have to be a UK tax payer to benefit from UK PLR.  Having said that, some countries do have reciprocal schemes.  So, for e.g. I can claim PLR from Germany for my works published there and a German author can claim PLR in the UK for his or her works published here.
I may have loads of friends in the USA, but I don’t know how the system works so I wouldn’t like to comment on whether the PLR system was viable or workable for you guys.  But it works very well in the countries that have seen fit to implement it. - and I am eternally grateful!

I wonder if authors in the U.S. would take more notice of the dire conditions for public libraries (cut hours, closures), and do more to keep them funded, if they directly benefitted from them staying open.

There are still many Brits, French, Germans etc. etc. who believe, as a matter of ideological conviction, that certain things - like health-care, education, libraries, museums - should be free, so that people at all levels of society can have equal access to them and benefit from them

FWIW, there are many Americans who believe the exact same thing.

Unfortunately, we tend to get shouted down by the people shrieking about how we’re a bunch of pinko Commies who hate America, freedom, and Jesus, and want to turn this into the next USSR.

B/c there’s nothing more American than poor people dying of easily treatable diseases. /rant

It’s 15 years since I lived in the UK, Scotland to be precise, but their libraries were not lacking at all in paperbacks.  Matter of fact they had tons and tons of current Mills and Boon titles and big romance sections and I patronized 5-6 different branches in a 25 mile radius of where I lived.  Those libraries were where I discovered Temptations and a lot of romance authors who now write single titles. 

Granted things may have changed in the intervening years, but I’d like to see some numbers from the person who claimed that this system leads to old and out of date collections because it sure wasn’t true then and if you want to see old and out-dated you ought to come see some of the libraries here in the U.S.! sigh

Also, the person who worried about having to pay for library cards.  I hate to tell you this, but every single library I’ve been a ‘member’ of in the U.S. has charged a fee for the card (from $2 here in our little hamlet to $15 in bigger cities and in some locations it wasn’t a one-time charge but a yearly one) whereas all the library cards I ever had in Europe were free.

Our local public library actually charges a ‘rental’ fee for new books.  I was completely flabbergasted to find this out.  It’s low (5 cents a day), but it seems so counter to the purpose of a public library.

I absolutely believe that implementing something like this would be very hard, especially with the very different organizational structures of libraries in the U.S., but as was pointed out the number are calculated on a sample, and it would certainly not be impossible to exclude libraries on which the reporting would put undue burden due to the fact that they do not have computerized check-outs.

I’m really dismayed by the automatic rejection by many USians of any ideas that work in many other countries.  And I’m sorry to say, it doesn’t even seem to be predicated on the very real issues that this particular implementation would bring, but on the instinctive rejection of anything that comes from another country.  We saw the same on Karen’s blog when it came to Universal Health Care.  That’s such a shame!  And it’s such a self-defeating attitude.

Why not say, ‘I see X, Y and Z issues, but hmm, let me think, if we did it this way, we could solve X, maybe there are approaches for Y and Z too’, instead of saying ‘this will never work here and you are ignorant to think it could’ and shut down the discussion out of hand.

I’m really dismayed by the automatic rejection by many USians of any ideas that work in many other countries

Word.

Our town administrator once told me that he had never set foot in the library because he bought every book he read since he “didn’t have time to worry about bringing books back and late feels.”

Well, alrighty then.  Not all of us have the discretionary funds to do that.  I tracked my reading for one year, and during that time the value of the books I checked out was well over $15,000.

I agree with others who said it’s a slippery slope when you start charging a “per viewing” fee for books.  I don’t have a problem with people getting paid for their work, but can’t imagine that small libraries have the ability to track things like that—there are still a lot of little libraries that are not automated out there.

I am curious if this is something required by law in Great Britain and other countries (If this wasn’t paid libraries would be operating illegally) or sort of a subsidy program for authors.  In the US current copyright laws allows for libraries to loan out copies without paying royalties and to change this law, I believe, could open a can of worms not just for libraries, but for used bookshops and for individual purchasers who share books with others.  As a librarian, I also agree given the US’s multitude of libraries and library systems,  putting aside legal issues, would make it difficult.

Question for GrowlyCub re:  the rental fee for new books - Is this the only way to get one of these new books or are there other copies that circulate like regular book?  In our library we usually have , for popular books, many copies that are no fee, but offer the opportunity for people who don’t want to wait to rent books.  Professional curiosity.

Here’s one articles on the state of UK libraries and collections. 

Libraries have been failing the public by providing them with often old and incomplete collections,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3661831.stm

You can read more in the book, Reading and Reader Development by Elkins, Train and Denham

I’m another UK author who relies heavily on my PLR payment to make my earnings from writing worthwhile. I’m very surprised that there’s such a lot of opposition to the idea amongst authors in the US.  It works perfectly well in all the countries where it operates, and authors benefit - why knock it, when most of us earn so little from our work? It’s funded centrally from taxation and libraries certainly don’t suffer from it, in any way at all. At less than 6p per borrowing (worked out from a different sample of library areas each year, to be fair to everyone), it’s not a huge amount but can really add up if you’re lucky enough to be popular with library readers. Don’t knock it if you haven’t been lucky enough to try it!!

JD, this applies to all current books, and it’s a relatively small shelf (one 6 foot tall shelving unit up against a wall, so one-sided).  Our library doesn’t have very many doubles for anything. I think they bought 2 of each of the HPs once they took off, but everything else is only one copy and if it’s a current title, it goes on the rental shelf.  Not sure for how long, exactly, and I don’t know if that applies also to books that are bought for the first time, but that have been in print a while (if there are such beasts in our library to start with).

Why not say, ‘I see X, Y and Z issues, but hmm, let me think, if we did it this way, we could solve X, maybe there are approaches for Y and Z too’, instead of saying ‘this will never work here and you are ignorant to think it could’ and shut down the discussion out of hand.

Wow.  That’s an…...interesting interpretation of the discussion so far.

Charging for library cards is barbaric if they are publically funded and you are part of the “public” that publically funds them.  In my city, the library is funded by some sort of taxes.  Property, what have you.  So, if you own property in the county, you gets library for free!  If you live outside of the county, but you want to use our awesome library, you pay because you’re not contributing the other way.  Also, if you work in the county, go to school in the county, I believe you also get free card.  Of course there are still those that say “I live outside the county, don’t work in the county, don’t go to school in the county, don’t pay any of the taxes to support your library, but you have more books that MY library so I want to use it for free!”  They don’t generally get anywhere with that argument.  I can’t imagine having to pay for library access (or to check out books, or to check out movies, or to check out whatever the hell I wanted) and I think I would cry if it happened.

And I don’t think there is a general anti everyone but US sentiment in US copyright law in general.  In fact, the US changed quite a bit to reach out and join the Berne Convention.  Some non US authors whose works had gone into the public domain here (mostly because of the renewal and registration requirements that existed in the US) were brought back under copyright protection in 1989, while works from their native US counterparts were not. 

I’m not anti or pro anything (except the first sale doctrine!)  Sometimes, I just don’t agree.

Libraries have been failing the public by providing them with often old and incomplete collections

If you read the report, you’ll learn that the criticism is aimed at local authorities, who are responsible for the libraries and make the decisions about what the library’s budget is.

This has nothing whatever to do with PLR. This is assessed and run at national level. That’s a bit like confusing state law and federal law (not an exact comparison, but somewhat similar). PLR has no bearing on what libraries choose to buy and how they are run. It’s a universal charge, and is nothing to do with the local authority. They don’t get it, they don’t handle it, they don’t administer it.

So yes, I agree that some libraries have woefully inadequate collections, but that’s a completely different discussion and nothing to do with PLR.

One of the problems I think that concerns us in the US is the way libraries are funded and that library funding is a low priority item and tends to get cut in hard time.  In my area the community a library serves votes on our budget and pays for them out of their local taxes.  What is going to happen when they find out that they are also paying more taxes to support the library federally by paying royalties to authors?

Are there any law making advocates for this issue in the US?
I don’t see why there couldn’t be something in place similar to the other countries that do have it in place. It makes more sense than the used book royalties we were talking about recently.

As far as the money to pay for it, it should be included in the pool of money for the arts and literacy at the federal level.

I’m really dismayed by the automatic rejection by many USians of any ideas that work in many other countries.

I don’t think it’s an automatic dislike of anything foreign so much as an automatic dislike for anything that will raise taxes. Americans as a whole have an allergic reaction to the words “higher taxes”.

Hardly surprising, considering the colonies fought for freedom in large part because of complaints about…you guessed it. High taxes.  Tea, anyone?

It’s amazing, but taxes have little to do with it. Americans pay unspeakably high property taxes - up to twenty times as much for a house of the same value and with the same nearby amenities as Canadians do. Twenty times as much.

It’s priorities.

What GrowlyCub and snarkhunter said.

I don’t know that we have anywhere near the infrastructure necessary to make such a system work, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered at some point in the near future.

I am so sick of the “Let’s go back to the Robber Baron Era because it was Capitalism! Damn the Socialists and Commies!” knee-jerk reaction from so many of my fellow Americans. Not that most of them even KNOW the difference between Socialism and Communism, but hey! Neo-fascist kleptocracies are much, much better. *eyeroll*

I actually have no problem with some people being rich (although I fail to see why any human being on planet deserves to make more than ten million dollars a year - there is no one worth that much more money per annum than anyone else, I don’t care what they do). It’s when people use the Horatio Alger ‘bootstraps’ argument to excuse the suffering and endless cycle of poverty and disenfranchisement that I get pissed off.

Class segregation through poverty, lack of education and unfair labor practices are about as un-American as ideas get.

Given how much US public library budgets have already been cut (they always seem to be the first thing to go when governments are cutting their spending), instituting something like this would mean that the already limited budget would go to paying for books already in the library, rather than for new books. From a publishers standpoint, that would be disastrous. It’s been getting harder for books to be published primarily to the library market—this sort of model would make it impossible.

I can’t imagine having to pay for library access (or to check out books, or to check out movies, or to check out whatever the hell I wanted) and I think I would cry if it happened.

Yeah…everyone keeps using the “But UK libraries are free” argument.  They’re free here too.  Libraries are just about the only (non emergency/law enforcement) thing people don’t mind being “socialized”.  The only time I’ve ever had to pay to use a library was when I wanted a membership in another town’s library (and if you’re in a big city, you can borrow a book at any branch of your city’s library for free). 

I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed. Especially since the majority of arguments are things like “in the UK, there are some things more important than money” .  Well, if that’s true, then why are you insisting on being paid when someone tries to read your book for free? 

“I demand that the government compensate me for choosing a career in which I might not get paid as much as I wish I would”.

“Where’s this money coming from?”

“I dunno, taxes or something?”

I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed.

Why?  Any time you have a rental set up, somebody gets paid when somebody borrows the item.  Why should books be different, just because in the case of the library the rental is ‘free’ (except in our library with new books)?

Thanks Lynne Connolly and Liz.

I live in one of the most deprived areas in England & Wales but my Local Authority is good for its library funding. If the individual library doesn’t have a particular book it can be ordered in from another library, if it isn’t in any of the local libraries a copy will be bought. This is for the price of a stamp so the library can inform you (via postcard) that it now has the book in stock (children, the elderly and the unemployed don’t have to pay for the stamp). Old books are sold off for a few pence and there is a ‘new books’ section of both hardbacks and paperbacks. I don’t have to pay for a library card, or to use the computer. I’m afraid I take all this for granted and only realise how lucky I am that the libraries in my Borough are still seen as a priority. A few years ago the Authority did cut funding by reducing opening times for the smaller branches but my local one is still open 3 days per week plus Saturday mornings.

Until this article I had never heard of PLR but I’m glad my taxes are funding something useful for once.

I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed. Especially since the majority of arguments are things like “in the UK, there are some things more important than money” .  Well, if that’s true, then why are you insisting on being paid when someone tries to read your book for free? 

I don’t think I’m horrified, but I certainly don’t understand the premise.  And, I think this is where my innate american-ness comes in.  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.  Someone else MAY have bought that book instead of checking it out for free.  But, isn’t it just as likely that someone may not have even known about that book if it had not been available in the library?  I buy books for a living and there are still thousands of books, outside of the area that I buy, that I would have never known about except for the library buying it.  Maybe the library took away a sale when someone checked it out.  But it’s just as likely, for some authors, that they gained readers BECAUSE of the library.  Or is this not meant to be a supplement for the lost sales due to free public libraries? 

Copyright law usually gives me a big fuzzy warm glow but I’ve been trying to wrap my red, white and blue brain around this one all day and I just don’t get it.

I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed.

I think it’s fair to say that, as awesome as they are, libraries can represent a loss of potential income for an author.  The PLR is a means for the government to support authors - and thereby the cultural product of the nation - without any significant burden to the taxpayer.  I can quite see why due to the structure of funding etc. in the US it might be more difficult to implement, but if it helps authors to keep writing (and, you know, feeding themselves) when otherwise they might be forced to give up, then I can only see the PLR as a great thing.

I feel terribly guilty (and a little smug) to admit my library card also gives me free access to the local non-nationalised museums (nationalised museums are free anyway), and money off all council owned facilities such as swimming pools and gyms. And one weekend a year I can even get into National Trust and English Heritage properties free, which is a real coup.

Honestly, I would never have read as much as a child (averaging nine books a week) had it not been for my local library. I’m glad to know athors benefitted from that, though I suspect a large proportion were American authors, so I guess they didn’t. I can see the argument for British authors benefitting, since it’s British tax that pays for it - they’re giving money to themselves, in a way. (working at a museum, I give money to myself too!)

The divide in the UK between local (council tax) and national taxes (national insurance), and what each pays for, seems to be a stumbling point for people in different tax systems. Council Tax is local police, fire, schools, roads, libraries and the council itself. National Insurance covers the NHS, the Army, social security and benefits, (PLR) and nationalised museums. I suspect I’ve missed a few out on each list (the council tax people send me a list annually with the bill, but I can’t be arsed to find it right now), but that’s the idea.

For those who want to read more detail about it, the PLR website is here:
http://www.plr.uk.com/

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.

But if a radio station or TV station buys a CD, they’re not allowed to play it over and over again without paying royalties, are they?

I see a lot of confusion as to where the funding comes from.
If I put it in a US framework, you pay both state and federal taxes. 
So do we in the UK, we just call them different things.
PLR is funded ‘federally’.  Libraries are funded by individual ‘states’.
PLR has absolutely nothing to do with local library provision, funding, management or stocking, and has no impact on any of those things.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there are other federally funded projects in the States, yes?  So what would make this different in terms of organisation? The author registers a book with the federal department, and once registered, the federal department adds them to the ‘pool’ of authors in line for funds.  The author is responsible for registering their book, any subsequent books and for updating their information as required.  No effort on the part of the library required.
The amount paid per taxpayer towards the funds is minuscule - something along the line of 0.13 pence per year.  I think that’s good value, personally.  I honestly don’t quite get what the deal is.

Given that we all pay taxes, I sort of look upon it as a rebate for societal contributions - although this probably might not be a popular idea!

I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed.

But you aren’t horrified by books being unavailable to poor people because of a system that doesn’t support equal access? You aren’t horrified by US authors deciding not to have their books available in libraries because of the money they would lose? You aren’t horrified by anything that chips away at the feasibility of an already unreliable career option that nevertheless brings so much benefit to many? I don’t see why it should be horrifying for someone to be paid for their work. Or do you think that authors should write for free out of the good of their hearts?

Especially since the majority of arguments are things like “in the UK, there are some things more important than money” .

I don’t think anyone has made that argument, actually. Although I think the concept of equal treatment is one with some merit.

“I demand that the government compensate me for choosing a career in which I might not get paid as much as I wish I would”.

But if the government demands the product of your work should be made freely available to the public, aren’t you entitled to some compensation.

“Where’s this money coming from?”

“I dunno, taxes or something?”

Not ‘taxes or something’. Just ‘taxes’. As been has said, PLR is paid for by all of UK society, from income tax. Income tax is a staggered percentage tax on income (surprise!), so that the wealthier pay more than the poor, as they can afford to. So PLR, like all other public systems, is paid for by all of society that can afford to contribute, and we all get the benefit from it.

As others have said, I think the principal issue in introducing a similar system in the US would be justifying the taxes to a populace that is generally suspicious of socialist systems. (Sure, Americans pay higher property tax - but that’s an instant pay-off; you see the house, you pay for it, you get the house. If you pay a tax for a public resource and you can’t instantly see the benefit of paying for that resource, it feels harder to justify.)

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.

But if a radio station or TV station buys a CD, they’re not allowed to play it over and over again without paying royalties, are they?

Right - it’s not the book or CD that’s the product, it’s what it contains.

In Canada, I pay $12 per year (for the whole household) for library membership, and probably around $50 per year in late fees, depending upon how slack I get about returning books.

The library buys books, but also puts donated books into circulation, and sells off discards at a discount sale table.

I stop buying books when they start coming out in hardcover because they’re way too much money, and because that’s usually the point when a series will start sucking.

If a borrowed book is a keeper, then I’ll buy a copy when it comes out in paperback, but otherwise, the author won’t make a penny off me.

If a recording artist or song- or tv-writer gets paid every time their product is played on the radio or shown on tv, why not pay authors for every time their book is borrowed from the library?  I wasn’t aware of a PLR program in Canada, but hey.  Cool.

Our arts and sports funding is usually bundled as well (Recreation & Culture last time I was paying attention), and usually the lion’s share goes to sports, because they tend to be better organized about applying for grants.

It makes me crazy that libraries, education, and arts are the first things cut.  These are the things that, when freely and widely available and encouraged, cause things like reduction in crime rates (see the evolution of Columbia over the past decade or so).

First off, NY state employees are supposed to get only a 3% raise this year (and it is never much more than that) if the gov doesn’t take it away because we are in fiscal badtimes. However, and this it the part that is important, NON-union employees are on a management confidential payscale and get the big raises. They are tied into the budget so that they can’t be taken back.

Secondly, that lousy 3% will get eaten up by local/state/federal tax increases and medical insurance increases, which the management confidential pay little or nothing for.

I know, my retirement is tied to it. With that being said- here is a big reason why this would not work in the US.

The US is based on a home rules state policy and the libraries are not federally managed but locally. Therefore, the federal gov’t has no say in how they are run, what books they buy or don’t buy (unless it comes down to a book burning/federal case of censorship).

Trying to do something like this, with 50 different states and how they think it should be done, and how much and who should do it, and where the money would come from, would tie up the Senate and Congress for decades.

Maybe that isn’t such a bad idea after all.

[I think it’s fair to say that, as awesome as they are, libraries can represent a loss of potential income for an author.  The PLR is a means for the government to support authors - and thereby the cultural product of the nation - without any significant burden to the taxpayer. ]

Well said, Lindsay! That’s exactly the point, in my opinion!

Afterthought: Several people commented upthread to the line of “the US is bigger with more authors, so it would cause more problems / cost more”. 
It’s important to note that it’s capped - once you’ve achieved the maximum figure, doesn’t matter how insanely popular you are, you don’t get any more. 
I’d be interested to see if the total figure of borrowings vs authors over total head of taxpaying population is any higher than here… because I really don’t think the US does have more libraries as a percentage, a higher rate of library use, nor more authors as a percentage than the UK.  Wonder how you could work that out.  H’mmm.

The US is based on a home rules state policy and the libraries are not federally managed but locally. Therefore, the federal gov’t has no say in how they are run, what books they buy or don’t buy (unless it comes down to a book burning/federal case of censorship)

I don’t see it.  All the libraries would have to do is report lending statistics.  They may all use different computer programs to provide those statistics, but really, the PLR (as I understand it) has nothing to do with how local libraries are run.  It sounds like the program bookkeeping, pure and simple.

Authors register their books with the PLR organization.  Libraries report their lending statistics to the PLR organization.  PLR Org does some math and cuts some cheques.  Done.

Authors register their books with the PLR organization.  Libraries report their lending statistics to the PLR organization.  PLR Org does some math and cuts some cheques.

And since the PLR here is calculated on only a proportion of libraries, then you wouldn’t even need every library to report their stats, just a certain number of them.

re University Libraries. Over here in Austria, the major University are public and so the libraries are funded by the public too. In my hometown, the Unversity Library is also the Tyrolean State Library. There is a central “Verwertungsgesellschaft” authors can sign up with, and they monitor lending in libraries etc (it is not just libraries here in Austria, but also broadcasting and other uses) and if you are lucky, you get some money eventually. They do not distintuish between fiction and non-fiction either - my brother has published several sholarly articles and books on law topics and he got some money from them (not a lot, obviously).
I know Germany has a similar system….

I can no longer borrow books from my university library since I graduated. I can go in and wander around, but I can’t take anything out. I’m fairly certain that all UK uni library funding comes from the student fees (though I think the Unis still get some money from the govt, despite top up fees) rather than either local or national government, which is probably why they’re not part of PLR.

York94: Why yes, I did go to York uni, though not in ‘94…

‘I’m pretty horrified by the idea of authors demanding to be paid every time their books are borrowed.’

There is no demanding - it is an acknowledged ‘right.  And as someone else has already posted,  ‘why?’  I have to support myself via my writing, I take pride in it, and am proud to be read.
A good workwoman is worthy of her hire imo - or in my case of her royalty payment, and her PLR.

The money for many of our library buildings was originally provided and raised by Victorian philanthropists. Whenever I give a talk I always suggest to readers who tell me they can’t afford to buy books that they borrow them from their local library. I also point out to them that the person selling my books second hand is making more from them than I do - and I don’t like that.  I have a thing about ‘fairness’ you see.

As it happens I’m going to do a library talk next week - at one of the North of England’s famous ‘Carnegie’ libraries. Andrew Carnegie gave money so that these libraries could be built to help the poor. I am proud to have my books in them, and I am delighted to be paid PLR - which comes from our general taxes (which are in general levied according to income).

I appreciate that this is ‘different’ to the US way of doing things but it is our way and I find that readers approve of it - it is something I always discuss with them when I give talks.

I think it was the New York Times that listed at the top of its ‘get it for free list’ Books - like authors, who let’s face it are mainly women - don’t deserve to be paid for their creativity, like somehow we should be delighted just to be read. I’d like to have seen someone suggesting that to Shakespeare or Dickens or a certain American who wrote that ‘only a fool doesn’t write for money’ - or words to that effect.

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.

I can only speak of my local university library but it is open to the public. Students automatically become members but everyone can become one (for free). I am not sure how it works with other university libraries…

I’m an American who is now living in Australia. I was really pleased when I found out that libraries here paid royalties to authors. (As a side note, I have cards in five different systems and was not charged for the cards, which was also true of the six systems I had cards for in the US. Some have more PBs than others, with one particular system being my main source for romance PBs.)  Funding for libraries is mainly from local city and council governments in most states, with state subsidies varying from 100% in Tasmania to less than 10% in New South Wales.

As for PLR payments, here’s a complete description of the PLR system in Australia: http://www.arts.gov.au/literature/lending_rights/public_lending_right_-_guidelines_for_claimants The payment is apparently on the number of copies held by libraries and not on how often the book is checked out. “The PLR rates of payment under the 2006-07 PLR scheme were $1.47 per copy of each eligible book for creators and 36.75 cents per copy of each eligible book for publishers. For the 2006-07 program, 8866 book creators and publishers received PLR payments… The amount of a PLR payment for a book is calculated by multiplying the relevant PLR rate of payment by the estimated number of copies of the book. For example, if the 2006-07 estimated number of copies of a book was 200, the creator’s PLR payment would be $280 and the publisher’s PLR payment would be $70.” “Books are surveyed annually for three consecutive financial years following their year of publication. If, in the third year, a book is still held in sufficient numbers in public lending libraries, it will be resurveyed every three years. Books scoring less than 50 copies in the third or subsequent surveys are dropped from the survey cycle.”

But if a radio station or TV station buys a CD, they’re not allowed to play it over and over again without paying royalties, are they?

This isn’t the same thing.  You also can’t read a book over the air on tv or the radio station.  That is breaking copyright.  That is public performance, and completely different right in the “bundle of sticks” that is copyright law.  And radio stations/TV stations are not libraries.  Libraries are special.  Not just in my shriveled, black little heart, but also in the eyes of copyright law.

You aren’t horrified by US authors deciding not to have their books available in libraries because of the money they would lose? You aren’t horrified by anything that chips away at the feasibility of an already unreliable career option that nevertheless brings so much benefit to many? I don’t see why it should be horrifying for someone to be paid for their work. Or do you think that authors should write for free out of the good of their hearts?

This is my main problem with this entire thing:  There seems to be this underlying idea that libraries are somehow TAKING AWAY from authors and that, because of that taking, they need to be “made whole” with this PLR.  Maybe that isn’t how authors feel, but that’s what it sounds like.  As if, if it wasn’t for the libraries stealing our customers, we would have made X amount more dollars.  That argument hurts me to my heart.  It really does.

I think it’s fair to say that, as awesome as they are, libraries can represent a loss of potential income for an author.  The PLR is a means for the government to support authors - and thereby the cultural product of the nation - without any significant burden to the taxpayer.

I get this and I agree!  We have that too with the National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities.  And, probably, a host of other programs I know nothing about.  But, the fact that only public libraries are seen as the culprits makes me sad.

You aren’t horrified by US authors deciding not to have their books available in libraries because of the money they would lose?/quote]

How could an author do this?  Libraries buy books like any individual, the author has no say if their books are available in libraries.

Ah well, I read it all wrong again.

I thought that it would be an idea to tax all major league sports teams in the U.S. a penny a ticket and that those monies would be marked for the library systems and payment to authors for the use of their work.

Last year over 4 million people bought tickets just for the NY Yankees. Would owners begrudge the tax write-off of the penny on each sale and would the libraries & authors benefit from those pennies? Too simple? Too difficult?

And this

As for PLR payments, here’s a complete description of the PLR system in Australia: http://www.arts.gov.au/literature/lending_rights/public_lending_right_-_guidelines_for_claimants The payment is apparently on the number of copies held by libraries and not on how often the book is checked out. “The PLR rates of payment under the 2006-07 PLR scheme were $1.47 per copy of each eligible book for creators and 36.75 cents per copy of each eligible book for publishers. For the 2006-07 program, 8866 book creators and publishers received PLR payments… The amount of a PLR payment for a book is calculated by multiplying the relevant PLR rate of payment by the estimated number of copies of the book. For example, if the 2006-07 estimated number of copies of a book was 200, the creator’s PLR payment would be $280 and the publisher’s PLR payment would be $70.” “Books are surveyed annually for three consecutive financial years following their year of publication. If, in the third year, a book is still held in sufficient numbers in public lending libraries, it will be resurveyed every three years. Books scoring less than 50 copies in the third or subsequent surveys are dropped from the survey cycle.”

makes it all right for me.  I think this is great.  If you want to take the number of copies I buy and do some fancy math (I hate math) and work out an amount to pay authors from the fund you have set up for that, wonderful.  I still think it should apply to all libraries, and not just public libraries, but the rest is all good.  But the idea of repeating that charge every time a book is checked out seems way too strange for my Americanized brain.  Thanks, Australia! 

And I certainly can’t speak for other people, but let me just be very, really, absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR:  I DO NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER, THOUGHT THAT AUTHORS SHOULD NOT GET PAID FOR THEIR WORK.  NOT NOW.  NOT EVER.  OF COURSE YOU ALL SHOULD BE PAID FOR WHAT YOU DO JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO PROVIDES A SERVICE.  I don’t know how this became a conversation about how “we” think you should write for free or for some “honor” or whatever the hell.  I don’t think that.  If I didn’t love books (and, consequently, authors) I wouldn’t be doing the job I do.  I don’t work for free, and I certainly don’t expect anyone else to either.  Of course, I never SAID I did, but I thought I needed to get that down in writing.

But, the fact that only public libraries are seen as the culprits makes me sad.

The thing is though, it’s not punitive towards public libraries.  We love libraries!  The PLR does not mean that libraries have less money to buy books - library budgets are completely separate from the funds used to pay authors these royalties.  It’s not robbing Peter to pay Paul. 

But as an avid library user, I have definitely borrowed plenty of books that (funds permitting) I would otherwise have bought if I were desperate enough to read them.  I don’t feel bad about that - it’s the purpose of libraries, and if I really like a book I’ll buy a copy anyway - but I honestly don’t see anything wrong with a smidgen of tax money going to authors of books which I have read (and hopefully enjoyed!) but not bought.  It doesn’t hurt anyone, least of all public libraries, and I hope that it does some good.

Oops, I was writing my last comment as robinb posted again so ... take it as a general remark ;)

The Australian system is a little different from the UK’s. The PLR is not calculated on the basis of number of times the book is borrowed, but:

‘is determined by the estimated number of copies of eligible books which are held in the Australian public lending libraries. This information is obtained from an annual survey of the books held in a sample of public lending libraries selected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If 50 or more copies of an eligible book are estimated to be held in Australian public lending libraries a payment may be made.

(source of quote)

We also have the parallel Educational Lending Right system, which relates to the number of copies of books held by educational institutions. PLR and ELR are only payable to Australian citizens.

However, like the UK, the PLR and ELR systems are administered federally, while libraries are funded at the state & local level, so there is no impact on individual library budgets.

I don’t know how much it pays to authors on an individual basis. My book, published in Sept last year, will be counted (I hope!) in the 2009 survey, for which payment apparently isn’t made until 2010.

There are still many Brits, French, Germans etc. etc. who believe, as a matter of ideological conviction, that certain things - like health-care, education, libraries, museums - should be free

I know that this is a bit off topic - but anyhoo
Museums and art gallerys are only free in England because of the campaigning of the Art Fund http://www.artfund.org/ which raises money to buy works of art that are about to be sold abroad for the nation. In most European countries although there may be one free day a week entrance to museums and art gallerys is not free. This is a fairly recent devolpment, it happened in the 90s (sorry can’t remeber the exact date). As much as a love Labour they may have approved the scheme but it wasn’t their idea and the funding for artworks in Britain is deplorable and many if not most museums and art gallerys would not be able to survive let alone buy new works if it wasn’t for the Art Fund and similar organisations.
End rant.

Sorry - by the time I’d read 75+ comments and got my brain in gear enough to post, the Australian stuff had already been posted.

But just to note to someone who wondered why public libraries only are affected - there are very few private borrowing libraries here, and I suspect that they’re incorporated in this somehow, anyway. Plus ELR covers educational libraries (schools, unis, etc.)

Now that the first caffeine of the morning has kicked in, and I’ve thought about this a bit more, there’s another aspect that hasn’t been mentioned. The objectives of the PLR/ELR in Australia are two-fold:

  *  to make payments to eligible Australian creators and publishers on the basis that income is lost from the availability of their books in public lending libraries.
  * to support the enrichment of Australian culture by encouraging the growth and development of Australian writing and publishing.

The first one has been discussed here, and some people agree, some people don’t. The second objective, however, is also important, and relates to one of the huge issues smaller countries face: supporting local cultural production.

We’ve got 22 million people in Australia. Our cultural markets are flooded with US and (to a slightly lesser extent) UK imports. Given the small size of our market, it is difficult for an Australian author to make a living from Australian book sales alone. (Possible, especially in crime fiction, but difficult.)

While we have quite a few wonderful Australian romance authors who make a living from writing, in most cases those authors are acquired first by a US publisher, and then published here. Australian book sales are only a small part of their earnings. For authors who write distinctly Australian books, it is much harder to be published elsewhere, even when the book is doing well here.

So, the second objective of the PLR/ELR in our context means that Australian authors who are included in library collections across the country are recognised by the government for their contribution to our culture, and given a little extra support to continue to do so.

Sarah, thanks for your enthusiasm for the PLR.  It’s lovely to be reminded that the UK isn’t a *total* crapbasket!

How about, instead of giving the authors cash, the authors take a tax writeoff for library reads? This avoids the problem of flagrant inefficiency in funds distribution and the problem of raising taxes to pay for it. In fact, you could do it in a way that didn’t require the libraries to report checkouts at all - just set a standard. You assume that all paperbacks circulate once a month for three years, and all hardcovers circulate once a month for ten years, or whatever, and just require publishers to track the number of copies sold to libraries. The publishers could get a write-off, too, as an incentive to track, since they also lose money. It would be less fair to megasellers and overcompensate niche writers but it would be a start.

The part that I’m not understanding is, there are authors who make the majority of their income from library book fees?  And there are publishers who print only library books?  Am I understanding this correctly?  It must be another one of those cultural chasms, and I’m not trying to sound insulting, so please don’t take it that way;  but if it’s true that some authors make the majority of their income through library book rentals, this sounds more like a subsidy for authors than anything else.  Does the author get paid royalties when the library buys the book and also every time it’s borrowed?  And what about donated books?  Are they allowed, and if so, does the author get royalties on those also?  My library has a huge section of paperbacks that have been donated by the public.  The authors were paid royalties for the sale of those books when they were bought by the people who donated them.  I’m definitely not a right-winger, but this sounds seriously like a subsidy, or even double-dipping.

Museums and art gallerys are only free in England because of the campaigning of the Art Fund http://www.artfund.org/ which raises money to buy works of art that are about to be sold abroad for the nation.

Would that it were so simple!  The Art Fund, or, as I still think of it, the NACF, is an admirable private organisation that has assisted galleries (mainly art galleries rather than museums) since 1911, but it is far from being the only one involved in any of these matters.  It is one of several grant-giving bodies to which institutions may turn for help, though they will not always be successful.  For example, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund, and the V&A’s grant fund are three of the others.  It is also one of the many constituencies that have been implacably opposed to museum charges over the last 40 years, often in the teeth of government policy.

The system regarding works of art and other cultural and heritage property that have been sold to overseas buyers involves, first of all, the Export Licensing Unit of the DCMS, a network of expert advisors, scholars in a wide range of disciplines, and the Reviewing Committee, first set up following the Waverley Report of 1952, which meets monthly, considers cases, and passes its recommendations to the govt. Minister at the DCMS.  Items that are export-stopped on the advice of that committee can only have a temporary bar placed on the transaction:  they will still be exported in due course if no UK institution is able to raise the matching funds to buy them, for which recourse to grant-giving bodies is usually required - and it may be refused:  we do not have a right of pre-emption like that which exists in France.

Public arts funding is far too low in the UK, and as I mentioned above, the DCMS does not have the clout of some other government departments, try as it might.  We struggle on.

This is slightly off the library topic, but I know a great deal about the museum side, having spent my whole career as a senior curator in a national museum, and I wanted to make it clear that it is not as simple a matter as has been suggested above.

AgTigress my apologies if I made it sound too simple, that was not my intention (I am also involved in the arts world although at nothing like the level you are and am aware of the rigmorale that is funding applications)

I mentioned the Art Fund as it is the organisation I know best and also one that the public can join without becoming a friend of a specific institute.
All I wanted to point out was that our free entrance to such institutions is not as straight forward as was suggested.
I also used the Art Fund link as much of the information you have provided is included in their website and if people were interested it is a useful place to get more information.

I agree with you the lack of funding is atrocious and I also believe centred way to much on London and not on regional museums and projects a situation that only appears to be getting worse.

Elizabeth, we are clearly on the same side! 

There will probably never be enough money available for all the worthwhile things that need doing, and much of what goes on is a constant tug-of-war between different bodies.  I actually think that the regional element in the museum/gallery world is getting much better:  things are far, far less focused on London than they were, say, 25 years ago, let alone 40 years, but like everything else, change is not only gradual, but also tends to follow a rather jerky pattern, not a smooth curve. 

We still have a very long way to go, and frankly, the only way of making real progress is higher income-tax on high earners.  To whoever mentioned above that Americans are ‘allergic to taxation’:  well, yes.  So are we all.  I have never heard anyone say, ‘oooh, I paid a huge amount of cash to the Revenue this month - what jolly fun!’  We are ALL ‘allergic to taxes’.  But we also know what is right.  There is a basic principle which, whether you call it ‘socialism’ or just ‘responsible, decent behaviour’, requires that those who are doing well should help to reach out to those who are disadvantaged.  We should pay according to our means, and benefit according to our needs.

I think there’s another disconnect here as far as what Americans and Europeans perceive as the purpose of a public library.  In the USA, it is considered to be a service to benefit the public.  Period.  That is it’s only purpose.  It is not to enrich or subsidize authors.  The library buys the books.  The authors receive royalties for the books that the library buys.  How is that a ripoff for the author?  How many millions of books do libraries buy and pay for that the public would not have bought themselves? 

But you aren’t horrified by books being unavailable to poor people because of a system that doesn’t support equal access? You aren’t horrified by US authors deciding not to have their books available in libraries because of the money they would lose? You aren’t horrified by anything that chips away at the feasibility of an already unreliable career option that nevertheless brings so much benefit to many? I don’t see why it should be horrifying for someone to be paid for their work. Or do you think that authors should write for free out of the good of their hearts?

Holy crap!  What makes you think that free public libraries in the USA are any less accessible to the poor than they are anywhere else in the world.  Free public libraries are just that - free.  For everybody. 

Do American authors choose not to have their books in libraries?  I’ve never heard of this is it common?

I would think that the author is paid for their work when they sell a book to the library.  Just like they get paid for their work if anyone else buys it.  Nobody is saying authors don’t deserve to get paid, and for the life of me, I can’t figure out how you came to that conclusion.  Who here said that authors should work for free?

Why should the public subsidize “an already unreliable career option that nevertheless brings so much benefit to many”?  The same description could apply to street musicians, hot dog vendors, or riding instructors.  Should they also be subsidized?  No one forces anyone to become an author.  It’s a tough way to make a living.  However, when you make the choice to earn your living this way, or in any other fiscally unreliable manner, who should bear the responsibility for that choice?  You or the public?

I think a lot of this boils down to the concepts of capitalism and self-reliance that are deeply ingrained in the American psyche.  For better or for worse, many of us feel that once we buy a product, even a book, it is ours to use as we will.  Capitalism.  The author has already been paid when the book was purchased.  LIbraries do not make money on those books.  They are not charging the public for their use.  They are not charging admission to look at them.  If an author should be paid whenever a book is borrowed, shouldn’t that author be expected to pay a shelving fee in order for the book to be available to the public for borrowing (or rental in this case)?

Self-reliance.  You choose your profession.  You support yourself in that profession.  If you cannot support yourself in your chosen profession, you find some other way to supplement your income or choose another profession.  We don’t expect the general public to subsidize us (unless we’re farmers) because we’ve chosen a low-paying profession, no matter how happy it makes people.  I guess that sounds cold, but that’s how it works here.

My word is below62.  Right now, it’s way below 62!  It’s 24 degree Fahrenheit.  I wish it was above 62.

PLR just is, and it works. We have more authors writing more books because of it, so in that way it enriches our culture. It’s not just for romance books, it’s for poets, historians, anyone whose book is stocked in a library.
Maybe we think that not everything has to have a profit at the end of the day. That sometimes you can have art for art’s sake, and every time you nurture a talent, you’re not expecting cold, hard cash at the end of the transaction. Pursuing happiness, maybe.

Well, I clicked on the comments to say everything RobinB just said.  So, I guess my work here is done (thanks for saving me some typing, Robin!).

I do want to say that I think the PLR payment, while awesome for authors and their finances (which is a big hooray across the board), is an example of conflating the underlying intellectual property with a copy of the intellectual property (which I think is very bad for our legal system). 

For instance, if I buy a copy of a book, I own the copy.  If I drop it in the bath, I don’t get to go to the bookstore and demand a prestine copy.  If I decide to sell it to the used book store or lend it to a friend, the author and publisher don’t get any more money for that second sale or reading.  I own a copy of the book, I can do what I want with that copy, I don’t own the underlying book.  (This is what Robin was talking about with the first sale doctrine).  If I get an electronic copy of a book or some music, usually I’m not buying a copy, I’m licensing the right to access the book or music and/or save a copy on my hardrive.  That’s different, legally, than buying a copy because once I burn through my access rights granted by the license, my rights are done.  I don’t really “own” anything.

I’ve noticed in other copyright discussions online (especially those revolving around the DMCA) people dislike the idea that when they get an e-book or download a song from i-tunes, they don’t “own” the materials.  In fact, some seem to think that paying for the materials once should give them a right to permenant access to the intellectual property no matter what electronic format it’s on.  That’s an idea I dislike greatly, because it leaves the author without rights to their content, but e-retailers aren’t going out of their way to explain what you’re paying for when you “buy” (licence!) an e-copy of a book or some music.  Which makes the arguments understandable, I suppose.

In a way, the PLR seems like the flip-side of that argument.  Rather than getting royalties from the first sale of a copy of the book, the library is giving money to the author (and publisher?  I’m not clear on that) for every time it’s checked out, which seems more like licensing the content, legally.  Which, to my mind, is a problem because it’s imposing an access cost on a copy of a work that has a built-in lifespan anyway.  As Nora Roberts pointed out, if the book is read enough, the library will have to buy more copies anyway.  The author’s payment is factored in to this model.  I wouldn’t argue with charging more for the book or giving authors a bigger cut of the profits, but chaging what’s being paid for, and then only imposing that access cost on libraries seems like a bad idea for the USA’s legal system and copyright system in general. 

Though, really, the point may be moot in time, anyway.  Many libraries are moving more and more towards e-books, and the payment system for them (as I understand it) is very similar to PLR payments.  As we move away from print, the move from buying copies to licensing access may solve this problem for us.

Just to add to my fellow Aussie Brownyn Parry’s information on why authors here benefit from library sales, many outback towns only get to see works from new authors when the mobile library visits once or twice a month by bus or truck. Then, when they make a trip into their nearest big town, they often save all their money to buy great piles of other books from those authors to take home with them. More sales. Plus, local libraries have a forward ordering system for all “To be released’ titles for the coming months where you check lists online,  pay a holding fee, then go on a waiting list for that book. That way each library knows in advance whether they need to buy 50 or 100 copies of that book to meet demand. Once again, more sales for authors.
By increasing interest in new authors, and new books by popular authors, everyone wins,
Sue

I think there’s a subtlety in this that has perhaps been missed, in part due to the different cultural perspectives and experiences.

The PLR, although in some cases expressed as a royalty, is not a move towards trying to get libraries, or library users, to pay royalties. It is an acknowledgment by governments of the importance of local cultural production.

Bear in mind that in countries like Australia, Australian-authored books might only constitute 5-10% of a library’s holdings. So, PLR only applies to a small proportion of books available for borrowing. I’m guessing there might be similar figures in many European countries for locally-authored books, especially with regard to fiction, which tends to be translated from English rather than acquired locally. Maybe in the UK and Canada the figures are higher, but I’m pretty sure there’s still a strong US portion.

To be frank, I don’t see PLR as being particularly appropriate in the US context. The sheer size of the market, and the cultural dominance of US authors in their home market and abroad, means that authors have a lot more opportunity to be rewarded for their creative work than authors in smaller countries have.

PLR, in Australia at least, is not just about the physical product of ‘the book’. It’s about our context, and the limitations of our small market, and importantly about our culture and the importance of nurturing authors (and publishers) who can explore that in creative ways, building our identity and sense of self as Australians.

Maybe we think that not everything has to have a profit at the end of the day. That sometimes you can have art for art’s sake, and every time you nurture a talent, you’re not expecting cold, hard cash at the end of the transaction. Pursuing happiness, maybe.

How so, when the author is demanding payment so that others may have the privilege of just looking at it?  It seems to me that, in this case, the author is much more mercenary since he or she is being paid both for the sale of the book and then repeatedly afterward just for the book having been read.  Having the cake (selling the book) and eating it too (being paid additional royalties whenever the book is checked out).  The sculptor of a statue in the public square does not get paid each time his art is admired, even if people come by the busload to view it.  He was paid for his creation when he sold it.  Same thing for the artist who paints the government bigwig’s portrait that hangs in city hall.  He has been paid.  The product that he sold to the public now is public property, and anyone in town can look at it.  He will be recompensed no further. 

I would think that pursuing happiness would be more apt when one could enjoy a book that was purchased with tax dollars, knowing that one will not be taxed again just for borrowing it.

Wow—per usual, I’m late to a really complicated discussion…

I think being paid a little revenue per viewing of my books would be awesome… and I think any system that supports its artists in such a way should be lauded to the heavens, no matter what the drawback.

Could we make it work? 

Of course we could.  We could also make socialized medicine and alternative energy resources work—but, as many people have state, “priorities”.  Many of our loudest voices don’t see the world this way.  Of course, many of our loudest voices don’t see education as a priority, unless it’s to make grand, sweeping, ignorant statements about schools and teachers and then hand down unlivable edicts that assume every kid is built the exact same way and every student should WANT to go to college.  (This isn’t true.  The fact is, we disrespect honest work and tradesmen as much as we disrespect artists, and every time we tell a kid who’s good with his hands that “it’s not good enough to get him into college” we make sure that the one kid who’s self confident enough to walk his own line has us over a frickin’ barrel when he’s fixing our car, remodeling our house, or crafting our furniture.)  The fact is, the United States educational/economic model is designed EXACTLY to the specifications of the gentleman who bought his books instead of going to the library—the general feeling being that if we want to read that much, we’ll buy our own.  (Just like ‘if we want to succeed that much, we’ll get into college, even if there’s nothing there we want to do’.) 

The fun part of this model is that it limits EVERYBODY.  As a teacher I break copyright laws frequently, in order to get more materials (and more up-to-date) materials to my students.  As a writer, I assume people loan my books to friends and even hope they do, because even if I’m not getting paid, at least I’m getting read.  As a taxpayer, I think that if the schools and libraries were run better, these wouldn’t be choices I’m forced to make. 

It’s self-centered and blind.  It’s very US.

It is a lovely concept though.  Ah, priorities.

As a librarian in a small rural town, I can say this would be a dream for authors, but a nightmare otherwise.

Libraries are not nationalized here. They are a patchwork quilt of entities that range from fully voluteer non-accredited ones (usually because they aren’t open enough hours, spend enough per capita or otherwise do not qualify) to massive systems with multitudes of branches.

My library receives funds mostly from our City, with microscopic percentages coming from our County and State (via State Library funding). The City covers about 98% of our funding, yet allows free library service to anyone.

If a federal program like this was instituted, libraries who are administered in a myriad of ways would have to have to come up with a system to track this data. The idea of the federal government getting their foot in my library’s door gives me a case of the screaming heebie jeebies. I already get twitchy filling out the 20+ pages of our state library’s annual report and the myriad other reports we have to fill out, much less what would be required to do a federal program.

I don’t think there’s a chance in hell this would get through Congress. Not only the “no more taxes” mantra, but it would take them forever to tack on all their special projects into it. *g*

Even the tiny amount from our State Library practically requires us to stand on our heads to get it, but since the State Librarian had to do that with our state’s Congress, I figure it balances out. It was once remarked in our regional meeting (and there are over 100 accredited libraries in just our one region) that our state librarian was giving a speech to Congress about the need for more funding, and that our state usually ranked in the last ten out of the 50 states in regards to funding. At which point, one Congressman whispered to another, “Really? What can we do to get down to 50?”

Feel the love.

Another Canadian here. A bit of confusion over the PLR as a royality it’s not considered one. Here’s a bit from the Canadian PLR FAQ:

Are Public Lending Right payments like royalties?

No. Royalties are payments from a publisher based a percentage of the revenues received for book sales. Public Lending Right payments are provided by the federal government in recognition of the contributions that authors make to Canadian society through the presence of their books in public libraries.

Also, the person who worried about having to pay for library cards.  I hate to tell you this, but every single library I’ve been a ‘member’ of in the U.S. has charged a fee for the card (from $2 here in our little hamlet to $15 in bigger cities and in some locations it wasn’t a one-time charge but a yearly one) whereas all the library cards I ever had in Europe were free.

GrowlyCub, I read this part of your comment and almost choked. Really?? I’m not doubting you, I’m honestly just surprised at how different my experience has been. I’ve never had to pay anything for a library card, in any U.S. community I’ve lived in—and that’s four library districts in two different states, including one small town, one major city, and two suburbs. I also did a quick, if limited, Google on “library card fees” and found it pretty consistent: library cards seem to be free to residents of a community, and not-free to non-residents. (Though at least two of the library districts I’ve lived in have also had reciprocal borrower agreements with surrounding communities, so that my card was good for most library privileges in those libraries, too. Not all privileges—I seem to remember that some libraries wouldn’t let me borrow movies—but certainly for checking out books.)

Not that it’s all that relevant to the topic under discussion, I suppose . . .

Mary, not only did I have to fork over 2 bucks for the card here, I also had to provide two references with phone numbers and I live in the city limits (even though this is the county library, so not living within the limits shouldn’t make a difference).  But then our library also has a rental shelf, so we might just be really special. :)

GrowlyCub, that’s wild. The two references I can understand—I worked in a public library for a while, back in the 1980s, and even then we required proof of residence and a local reference (which we never called; I remember one applicant used our state representative’s name and contact information, on the theory that he’d voted for the man, after all) (yes, we accepted it)—but paying for a library card? That’s just wrong.

We had rental books too, but they were—as someone above mentioned—a supplemental collection of best sellers, and we sent them back to the agency when shelf space got tight.

Another bit of Australian info: you can read the list of the highest scoring books (fiction and nonfiction) from the PLR here
http://www.arts.gov.au/literature/lending_rights/highest_scoring_books_plr

And you’ll find that lots are children’s books.

I’m really astounded at a few of the comments on here… There seems to be a small thread of real hostility to the idea that writers should be paid to be read.  Do those who feel like this also feel the same about the work of musicians?  Actors? Artists?  Maybe it’s to do with the current prevailing free-download culture?  Do you also resent musicians getting PRS/MCPS?  Or artists their resale percentage?

We writers have enough to deal with, gritting our teeth every time a ‘dedicated’ second-hand book store opens, or when book-swop websites such as Book Crossing gleefully offer our books to be ‘released into the wild’, completely free.  Our PLR is a civilised and fair payment so please don’t grudge it to us.

Joanne said “I think a lot of this boils down to the concepts of capitalism and self-reliance that are deeply ingrained in the American psyche.  For better or for worse, many of us feel that once we buy a product, even a book, it is ours to use as we will.”

I don’t think this quite accords with my understanding of various American companies’ activities regarding end-user rights on e products, including various formats of ebooks.  Capitalist yes, ours to use as we will, no.

How long does one receive the PLR payments?  Do they last as long as copyrights so that heirs can directly benefit or do the PLR payments die with the author?
If books are compilations, are all the authors paid equally or are you paid based on how many pages you have contributed?
Does the editor get some of the royalties?
Can you download audio books from the libraries and then do those get counted in the numbers?  Does an illustrator get paid for the downloaded books, because their art doesn’t come into play?
What do you do when the book is reprinted with different cover art?  Who gets the illustrator’s fee then?
Do the authors get taxed on their PLR pay?
(These are for the most part rhetorical questions.)

I personally think it is the USAian’s ability/curse to see so many questions about what “just is” in other countries that contributes to what others see as our brains shutting down on a “foreign” concept.  It is not our lack of thinking, it is our overthinking, rightly or wrongly.

When you register your books for PLR you are asked about your percentage contribution. With a regular novel, it’s going to be 100%.  Three novels to a compilation volume would give you 33%.  Author and illustrator of, say, children’s books, are both eligible at whatever ratio they’d already agreed.
Editors don’t get royalties from PLR, just as they don’t get them when books are sold.
Cover art is, as far as I know, on a buy-out basis and not eligible for royalties.
PLR is part of a writer’s taxable income.  Sadly, its annual payment more or less coincides with one of the twice-yearly self-employed tax dates so what comes in, tends to go straight out again!
I don’t know what happens with downloads.  As far as I know, these aren’t yet available via libraries.. but I assume that when they are, PLR will apply in the same way.
Interesting about whether PLR dies with the author - I don’t know that one, but would like to.  My guess would be that it goes on for as long as copyright does, ie 75 years after death. Anyone know if this is the case?

PLR does continue after death in the same way copyright does - UK authors are supposed to attribute PLR rights in their wills.  Some donate them back to the PLR funds pool, which I think is neat.

This all reminds me of the furiously acrimonious debates over droite de suite in the visual arts (basically, an arrangement whereby an artist himself and his heirs for a limited period after his death receives a small percentage payment when one of his works is sold on from one owner to the next):  the very concept of this law, accepted in many EU countries, infuriated the art-dealer establishment in the UK.  The artist himself should benefit from the resale of his work (often at sums vastly greater than his original sale), and cut into the profit of the dealers?  Outrageous!  Who does he think he is!  He only painted the &*^%$£ thing - what is that compared with buying and selling?  Why, any minute now, someone might suggest that creativity and beauty and spiritual nourishment are as important to human civilisation as moving currency from one location to another, and taking a fat cut of it every time.

Since I haven’t commented on the actual topic of this thread yet . . . ; )

As a U.S. citizen and library user, I have no objection whatsoever to the concept of PLR—well, provided that the money for it comes out of some source other than individual library budgets. I’ve no idea what a fair, sufficient, and reliable source would be, but (as someone pointed out upthread) if we wanted to do it, we could probably figure out a way. I do think it would be awfully difficult, given the patchwork-quilt of library districts and funding methods even in single states, let alone across the whole nation, and might cost everyone (including authors) more in taxes than people realize, making the whole thing a wash for most authors, but that’s another issue.

There is, however, something that hasn’t been mentioned yet, that might be figuring into some folk’s apparently automatic hostility to the concept, especially in U.S. librarians with long memories. Leaving aside the paperwork question—who gets to keep the records, and how much work is it going to be?—I can remember when librarians had to stand and fight against government oversight of circulation. This was a particularly rough fight when computerized card catalogs came in, but it wasn’t a new one: various security agencies had occasionally attempted to find out not just of what books were being borrowed, but WHICH PATRONS were borrowing certain books, even in the hand-stamp check-out days. It required a subpoena, and librarians fought it tooth and nail as being inimical to the very concept of free public libraries.

When computer came in, it got worse, because the data could be collected so much more easily (and anonymously). The library system I worked in did its absolute best to make sure that the computer-check-out system didn’t preserve that information. Period. The program was written to erase as soon as the book was returned (which made keeping track of which books needed to be culled difficult, too—or at least, I seem to remember some discussion of that potential problem). I suspect that the librarians were kidding themselves about protecting their patrons’ privacy, even then, but it mattered to them . . . so the idea of keeping track even of which books were being checked out might be contributing to an instinctively negative reaction to PLR, though (of course) it isn’t necessarily relevant.

FWIW.

Jocelyn said

In a way, the PLR seems like the flip-side of that argument.  Rather than getting royalties from the first sale of a copy of the book, the library is giving money to the author (and publisher?  I’m not clear on that) for every time it’s checked out, which seems more like licensing the content, legally.  Which, to my mind, is a problem because it’s imposing an access cost on a copy of a work that has a built-in lifespan anyway.  As Nora Roberts pointed out, if the book is read enough, the library will have to buy more copies anyway.  The author’s payment is factored in to this model.  I wouldn’t argue with charging more for the book or giving authors a bigger cut of the profits, but chaging what’s being paid for, and then only imposing that access cost on libraries seems like a bad idea for the USA’s legal system and copyright system in general. 

THANK you, Jocelyn!  This is what I was trying to say.  And, ultimately, this is an argument that has little point.  UK authors: good on you.  I’m glad you get this an that it works.  US libraries: good on us.  I’m glad that we don’t have this here because it would lead to something, I believe, that might be more damaging to libraries, especially public libraries.  And I can’t imagine public libraries sitting by while their academic counterparts are not required to contribute their circ figures to a scheme like this.  It was difficult enough to get the first sale doctrine codified (which is largely the basis for libraries to be able to operate as they do) and this is a step in the opposite direction.  We are moving more towards licensing content instead with e-materials, as Jocelyn said, so I would hate to see us apply that model to the things we have already bought and paid for. 

In other ugly American news, Quincy Jones has a petition for President Elect Obama to name a “Secretary of the Arts” cabinet level position. 
More talk of such a thing here:

I don’t think this quite accords with my understanding of various American companies’ activities regarding end-user rights on e products, including various formats of ebooks.  Capitalist yes, ours to use as we will, no.

In this case, we are not discussing ebooks.  We are discussing printed books sitting on the shelf at the public library, so I don’t see how that effects this situation.

Regarding the argument that you should use what you paid for as you see fit, that’s fine. Go and buy the book. However, if a public institution owns a book and lends it to said public, that’s a wee chunk of revenue that an author may never see. It’s only in the last decade that I’ve been able to afford books semi-regularly - I’m glad that my library patronage (which has been heavy) has still generated some income for the authors, in each of the three countries in which I’ve lived.

I absolutely agree that the provision of libraries is a public good. But people who provide the materials that public institutions use get compensated. The medical suppliers of the free hospitals here still get paid for the materials they provide. Sure, the author gets compensated once - but there will have been more of their books purchased if they weren’t available in libraries (Ms Roberts is making a lot of money off me at the moment, due to the uselessness of the Canberra library system, combined with the evil of Borders). So the PLR is just to even the scales a small amount - although I agree that a large benefit is also the advertising that having one’s books in the library provides. But unless you have zillions of books in print, I don’t think advertising is sufficient compensation. PLR certainly benefits those whose books are OOP!

I don’t know of anyone who thinks of the PLR scheme as some kind of bizarre licensing model. Libraries continue to sell off their old books to the public, and I sure don’t pay any PLR when I get a second-hand library book home and stick it on my own shelves. There has been no impact on second-hand book stores in the UK (or anywhere else with this scheme) - the UK is great for second-hand books. It is not the thin edge with regard to licensing - although given the confusion it seems to have caused here, perhaps any such scheme in the US would require explicit language saying that the author/publisher are not licensing the work. It is merely a (central) government contribution to the authors, based on the volume of books borrowed.

It’s not a nightmare to administer - the population of Western Europe, the UK and the antipodes is some multiples of the US population. The libraries gather the stats (and all libraries gather stats these days!) and forward them to the central agency that doles out the cheques to the registered authors. Simple. It’s like a grant to any kind of artist.

This has been such an awesome discussion about libraries!  Thanks to everyone who has participated!  For those of us in the US - there are many industries that give royalties and they don’t affect our taxes - music as it has been mentioned - actors get royalties for their movies and DVD sales.  Why not authors? 

Are we thinking too inside the box about libraries?  Take the radio for instance - they pay royalties AND offer a free service.  We aren’t offended that artists are paid royalties from radios and it doesn’t come from taxes.  Can libraries be privatized and still be free?  Would we be offended to have advertising at libraries that would allow them to be free and provide authors a royalty?

Also - the book industry is on the cusp of big change - look at e-readers and the popularity of Kindle.  Being able to trade books or getting used books may be dwindling fast.  I can now download books from the library from home - I would guess at some point we might be able to do this for electronic book copies.  Is the future of libraries more virtual than brick and mortar?

I LOVE to read and I think anything that keeps people writing (and able to afford writing as a career) is great!

If anyone is interested, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions has a position paper on this subject.  Find it here.

While radio is free for the listeners, it is definitely not free.  It is paid for by advertisers.  Royalties are paid for by radio stations that play it because they are commercial enterprises that make money off of the fact that they are playing said music.  Music radio stations would have no listeners, ergo they would not be able to make a profit from the advertising revenue they collect, if they did not play the music that they’re paying royalties on.  Royalties are paid for music on the radio and movies on tv because the stations broadcasting it are making a profit off of the movies and music.  Public libraries also loan videos, DVD’s, CD’s, and record albums (yes, the vinyl kind).  They don’t pay royalties for those in the USA, either.  They were either donated or bought and paid for by the libraries.  The artist has been paid - when the books, DVD, or CD was originally bought.  Nothing free about it.

Interesting discussion. Here in Canada, the programme is funded by the Federal Government, via the Canada Council for the Arts. Here are a couple of links with info on our PLR:

http://www.plr-dpp.ca/PLR/program/PLR_program.aspx
http://www.plr-dpp.ca/PLR/faq.aspx#royalties

I’m not sure at this point how it could be implemented in the US, but it’s not nearly as scary as some people make it out to be. At least with regards to civil rights and liberties. I’m a library tech student and know for a fact that many libraries include information in their Collection Development Policies stating that they buy items from all sides of an issue in order to provide as wide a viewpoint as possible. (if that makes sense - I’m exhausted right now) That doesn’t sound like restrictions on what can or can’t be bought because of a PLR are in place.