Author says Libraries "have had their day."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I feel like libraries shouldn't need an extra right to lend books they've legally purchased. Oh well, I guess whatever placates industry groups and lets libraries in the UK keep lending is better than some alternatives.

It's exactly the same in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. Canada also has a PLR, and for the same reason.

[Skydog]

Originally Posted by crich70

<snip> I think one trap a writer can fall into is that if they make too much $ on their writing they go from "I must write" to "I may write."

Too much? And what, exactly, would that be? How ridiculous.

His income is based on what consumers are willing to pay. It's called the free market.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Physical property exists even without government: locks still work even without government. With physical property, government can only enhance the powers you already have. Physical property is concrete, intellectual property is abstract.

Locks work, but they aren't property. A criminal who barricades himself inside a house doesn't own the house because he's locked the door.

Land and physical items exist. That's not the same as property. "Property" is a collection of rights that exist with respect to land (and items).

The land I live on has been substantially unchanged since the glaciers receded 15,000 years ago; it has existed in some form or another for millions of years. However, it is the existence of property law, created by governments, that allow me to draw an imaginary 60'x128' rectangle around a random parcel of this land and proclaim that I "own" this "property." It's the law that gives me the right to exclude other people from the land, to sell or rent the land, and to do other things with the land without interference from others. (It's also the law that prohibits me from constructing an unlicensed nuclear reactor on the land, however).

People in other cultures, including certain American Indian tribes, would find the idea of demarcating a parcel of land like this and asserting "ownership" over it ridiculous and unnatural.

Of course, people have always been able to stand on a piece of property with their spear and chase others away, thereby possessing that parcel of land. But that's not really "property" because they can only hold on to the land as long as they can defend it: anyone strong enough to take it away can do so, and it's pointless to try and sell the land because another strong person can just take it away from that person despite the sale. If you have the ability to hold onto something, you can, of course, hold onto it - but there is no "right" to do anything with the item or land beyond what you can do physically.

And the kind of property laws governments enacted have differed wildly, of course: before the conquest, anglo-saxon tribes owned land, but individuals did not - they were assigned parcels of it to occupy by the tribe (sort of like the system developed by the USSR about 1000 years later). Even after the conquest, it took a long time for property rights to become more like what we expect today: for the first 100 years after the conquest, all of the land was owned by the king and he just let the big vassals live there for their lifetime. After about 100 years, the big vassals were allowed to live there, but their heirs would inherit it after their death; they couldn't sell it. Around 1300, some limited right to sell property developed. But it wasn't until the 1500's that landowners obtained the right to leave their land to someone else in a will: prior to that, the eldest male heir inherited the property automatically, and neither the landowner or anyone else had the right to change this.

[QuantumIguana]

Property law only enhances powers you already have to protect your property. You can build walls, you can build fences, you can lock the gates even without government. Government adds to those existing powers by adding the force of the state.

Intellectual property is fundamentally different. Without the government, you have no power to prevent someone from making a copy. You can lock a gate without government, but without government, you can't stop someone from looking at what you created, and making one of their own.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by meeera

My understanding is that not only do libraries in the UK pay for books (apart from the legal deposit copy lodged at the British Library), but each loan also gets the author a royalty of just over six p, up to a cap of around six thousand pounds.

(I know that.)

Originally Posted by meeera

Deary's problem is that, as one of the few authors to attain that cap, he's now throwing a whiny little tantrum about it because he wants yet more money, and is one of those drongoes who has somehow managed to delude himself that every loan equates to a lost sale.

Yep.

Originally Posted by meeera

Of course, the alternate hypothesis is that his income is faltering so he's trolling for publicity, but given his other political, erm, eccentricities, I'm not plumping for that one.

I suspect the effect on his income will not be in an upward direction.

[SeaKing]

I fear that in the greater scheme of things, the libraries will fall by the wayside.

There will be pressure in the US for faster internet for everyone because somehow that is supposed to make the nations stronger though in reality it will mainly add to the coffers of the Media and Communications companies.

The overwhelming costs for the Govts will be Health Care. Add to that crazy promises made for Pensions in the Public sector and there will be little left.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Property law only enhances powers you already have to protect your property. You can build walls, you can build fences, you can lock the gates even without government. Government adds to those existing powers by adding the force of the state.

No. You're begging the question by presupposing that you already "own" the property in question. Without property law, you don't own anything.

*Anyone* can build walls or fences, not just the "owner." Anyone can build a fence anywhere and defend that property, regardless of who claims to own it or have bought it. Anyone can stand on any piece of land and shoot someone who comes too close.

There are no property rights in this system, you "own" something only to the extent you can defend it from others. Which is not ownership at all; it's mere possession. In this system, if I sell "my" land to you, your right to use the land exists only insofar as you can physically prevent someone else from occupying it. Meaning that you have no more rights than anyone else to the land.

Intellectual property is fundamentally different. Without the government, you have no power to prevent someone from making a copy. You can lock a gate without government, but without government, you can't stop someone from looking at what you created, and making one of their own.

I don't really disagree with this. My point is not that owning physical property is the same as owning intellectual property - there are significant differences. My point is only that property - all property - is not "natural," and only exists because of laws people made. Otherwise, it's just like a pack of wolves guarding their territory - they can hold it if they are able, but they don't have any particular "rights" in it.

[danskmacabre]

My daughter borrowed a few "Goosebumps" children's horror books from the library a while back.
she loves them and now owns lots of them that she wouldn't have bought if she didn't check them out at the library first.

The first book I read was "The Hobbit" which I took out from the school library many years ago.
Since then I have bought many editions of "The Hobbit", LOTR and many other Tolkien books.
I never would have been able to afford buying books when I was a kid, our family was not well off.

Now I'm a Husband and parent, we go regularly goto the library now as they offer many other services on top of books (and I still take books out).

Thank god libraries were around then and still are.

[auntykatkat]

I found a blog post that really expresses some of my beliefs on the subject. I particulary liked how she caught his hubris at " when we wanted to allow the impoverished access to literature."

I will even go one step further, as a reader and a lover of history: Mr. Deary you must have not paid attention to your history very much. Alot of our so called classics mostly made money after the author had died. Their genius was given to the authors posthumously. Maybe because of the libriaries allowing the impoverished masses access to literature, there are publishing companies to pay you for your books. Maybe you need a refresher course on who an author depends on most; the reader.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/foz-me...b_2695825.html

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Skydog

Too much? And what, exactly, would that be? How ridiculous.

His income is based on what consumers are willing to pay. It's called the free market.

I meant that a persons psychology could change. Rather than producing work because they want to tell a good story and be read, they could come to hold the sole view of writing = money. I mean to a certain extent it does but though I imagine the majority of writers want to earn money for their writing it shouldn't be the sole or primary focus I don't think. It's like what George Lucas once said about special effects. Some filmmakers will spend a very large amount of time and money on a special effect and it gains such importance in their minds that they spend valuable film time on it rather than advancing the story itself.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's exactly the same in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. Canada also has a PLR, and for the same reason.

You're entirely correct and I had no idea! I still think the system is somewhat unfortunate though.

[Iznogood]

I always get a bit sad when I read this kind of rants. Why is it that people like this D(r)eary-person never see the long-term values in things. He talks about his book sales here and now - tomorrow and the following years. But what happens after that?

Persons expressing such views are in my opinion very narrow-minded, to say it kindly, and only focused on themselves. He wants to remove maths from the schools just because he doesn't see the value. He wants to remove the libraries because he doesn't see the value - and everyone else who sees a value be damned.

I have never written children's books, but I'm quite sure that "even" writers of childrens books need to do some research or gathering some references? At least if you write for middle grade and up. So where does this particular person do his research? I know for a fact that most writers of non-fiction and many writers of fiction too uses the libraries for their research. Libraries actually gives something back to the authors besides new readers, sold books and free publicity. The library is, because of the freedon the libraries are given, a place for authors to research and get new facts and ideas.

Even though he's a best-selling author right here and now, does he think that popularity will last forever? When he's old and gray, I bet his books will still make some money - not because the libraries "steal" money from him, but because some of his books are preserved in the library and is read by someone who later buys his books too?

I say the libraries are more relevant than ever:
-more books than ever are produced and published. These must be preserved for the future, and the only suitable organisation to take that responsibility is the libraries. Authors and publishers doesn't have the means nor the economics to preserve stuff.
-with more books, more information on the internet, more information everywhere (we're practically drowning in information) it's often crucial to have access to a librarian. I bet even mr. Deary have used the knowledge of the librarians during his literary career.
-libraries create and educate new readers.
-libraries are much more than books. They are a creative arena for reading circles, study groups, and a very nice place for browsing books.
-if you are looking for a specific older book, the library is the best place to start. Books doesn't live very long on the shelves in a bookstore, and in just a few decades it becomes impossible to get - except for in the libraries.

At the end of this rant, I would like to propose a toast to the libraries.

May they live long and prosper.

[soulfuldog]

If you can't afford to buy books so borrow from the library, that's not a lost sale. Especially if in future you have more disposable income and a love of books from reading all those library books.
If you're not sure about an author and borrow from the library, that's not a lost sale, but if might gain you some sales in future.

Originally Posted by Iznogood

At the end of this rant, I would like to propose a toast to the libraries.

May they live long and prosper.

So in that case, hear hear, I'll drink to that!

[auntykatkat]

Originally Posted by l_macd

So in that case, hear hear, I'll drink to that!

Here, Here I'll join the party!

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's exactly the same in Canada, to the best of my knowledge. Canada also has a PLR, and for the same reason.

But, I gather that doesn't apply to ebooks, only printed books?

My understanding is that 4 of the 6 major publishers do not "allow" Canadian libraries to purchase and loan-out their ebooks. And that explains our very poor selection of ebooks available.