I still can’t measure the depth of my agog that in the UK and Canada, authors are paid royalties each time their book is borrowed. In the UK, it’s called the Public Lending Right, and authors receive 5.9 pence per borrow, or, about .08 cents US. The maximum an author can earn is £6600, or just under $10,000.00 US. The program is designed to “compensate… authors for the potential loss of sales from their works being available in public libraries,” according to Wikipedia. Not only is it a source of some revenue, but it’s also a confirmation to authors that their book is being borrowed and, one would presume, read.
I’m seriously crapping myself sideways over this idea. I’m just floored. Where does this money come from? According to the PLR website:
PLR is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and in 2007-08 received £7.63 million pounds in grant-in-aid, of which £6.66 million was distributed to authors. Funding for 2008-09 has been set at £7.4 million.
Holy crapping damn! I’m not sure how things are in your world, but here in the NJ/NY area, the news is flooded with reports of Governors Corzine and Paterson cutting budgets with twenty-five foot long hedge trimmers, which is all good and wonderful when you speak of fiscal awareness in broad terms, but when programs you use and need are cut entirely, well, things are going to be set on fire before either state’s budget passes. So I don’t think that it’s even remotely possible even on the Planet What the Fuck that royalty payments might be created for US authors whose books are borrowed from US libraries, especially considering the fight to fund those libraries in the first place. But still: WOW. Double WOW.
Do you think such a model would be possible in the US? (Was that the sound of a librarian somewhere in America hitting her head on the returns cart as she fell over laughing?) Do you enjoy such a payment each year from your country’s public library system?
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.
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).
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 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?”
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 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 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!
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?
I don’t think anyone has made that argument, actually. Although I think the concept of equal treatment is one with some merit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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.