Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Herley
Although it is of course true that libraries buy books and hence pay some royalties to authors, and although it is true that libraries act as showcases for lesser-known authors, the fact remains that authors are deprived of much income by libraries. In effect, authors subsidize the public library system, paying for the entertainment and enlightenment of people who earn far more than they do.
I campaigned against PLR in the 1980s, even going so far as to see my Member of Parliament at Westminster on the subject. Why should authors be so compensated, however inadequately, from the funds raised by general taxation? Far better to charge library-goers a small fee for each book borrowed -- with the usual dispensations for the young and the unemployed. Then people would not get the dangerous and ultimately corrosive idea in their heads that reading is somehow "free".
|
i've kept out of this discussion so far because i really didn't see anything to add that hadn't already been said (usually several times) but i really can't let this slip past.
attacking the idea of free public lending libraries ??
seriously ??? i can understand you, as an author, possibly being annoyed that a library could buy (and pay royalties on) just one copy of your books, which would then be enjoyed by countless people, none of whom would pay you anything, but i really can't accept the idea that the best solution to this is to impose a fee on library goers. and the idea of putting libraries in the same pot as pirates is just completely aberrant.
granted, the implicit subject of most of this debate has been recreational (or "luxury") reading, the latest science fiction or mystery or romance or whatever, but please let's not forget that libraries also serve as a repository and a conserve of our accumulated culture. this raises therefore many questions, one of the obvious ones being, who are you going to pay royalties to when you tax the library goer for checking out a work by shakespeare (or any other highly worthwhile but long since dead author) ? besides this purely pragmatic question, would you really want to put *any* obstacle, no matter how slight, in the way of the education and cultivation of people who might not otherwise have access to it, which is also represented by libraries ? what about students doing research ? what about people who are neither young nor unemployed, but nonetheless poor ? should they also be deprived of any culture or recreation ?
much of the argument against piracy seems to revolve around the notion of sacrificing the perception of individual good (i want this book, so i will take it) to the greater good of living in an organised society with laws and constructs ; however as far as i am concerned, society also has the responsibility of providing for its members who are less privileged, including by providing them, as much as possible, with education and a minimum of culture. this is not merely preferable to the individuals it benefits but overall i beleive completely necessary if we as a (global) civilisation (indeed, as a species) want to continue to evolve ; the Dark Ages were dark in large part because no-one knew how to read, and for that reason didn't know anything else either (it's the short version). without the preservation of
and access to their cultural heritage, societies and individuals degenerate into ignorance and / or barbary. it's not completely irrelevant to cite the old standard "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it" (or something to that effect, i don't remember exactly the citation).
for my last anecdote, when i was a child, both my parents worked but they still managed to be poor, so we could never afford to go away on holiday. instead, during the summer, every week we would go to the library, and i would check out a stack of books, that i would read all during the next week. in some ways, those stacks of books were more enriching than a month at the ocean might have been. those library summers certainly shaped who i am today in some very important ways, and would never have been possible if there had been a "fee" imposed on users.
i am afraid i have not been as eloquent, exhaustive or convincing as i would like on this subject but (as you can probably tell) i do feel rather strongly about it and it seemed to me rather important that
someone should defend the public library system.
that's all, you can get back to it now.