Author says Libraries "have had their day."

[crich70]

Originally Posted by l_macd

These two points are very debatable though. First of all, while some of those people may have bought the Harry Potter books if they weren't able to borrow them from the library, there's no way they would all have done so.

And as for harming booksellers and authors, there is some truth to that but at the same time you can argue that libraries help encourage people to read. I know if I hadn't had libraries available to me when I was young I probably would never have got interested in reading as we certainly couldn't have afforded to buy many books.

And there are no doubt some people who borrow a book from the library and then decide they want their own copy so they can re-read it again at their leisure. I imagine some people borrow movies from Netflix in the same way and then decide they want to add a given movie to their permanent collection. Or they borrow music by a given artist from the library and then discover they like it so they go out and buy their own copies of the music in question.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Governments do make many thing possible, but copyright laws are no more or less natural than other property laws - there's nothing "natural" about owning a particular piece of land, for example. Copyright is a newer law, of course, and there's less consensus on what the rules should be. (Although the rights to own real estate aren't too much older than copyright law - in England until 1300, you weren't allowed to sell the land you occupied (it technically belonged to the king), and it wasn't until the 1500's that you were allowed to leave land to someone else in a will.)

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.

[odiakkoh]

Originally Posted by crich70

And there are no doubt some people who borrow a book from the library and then decide they want their own copy so they can re-read it again at their leisure. I imagine some people borrow movies from Netflix in the same way and then decide they want to add a given movie to their permanent collection. Or they borrow music by a given artist from the library and then discover they like it so they go out and buy their own copies of the music in question.

I do this for all.

[Shushan]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I do not agree with this author.
there would be NO WAY for me to have bought every reference book I've used in a library. It just can't be done. During my school / college period, I would needed to buy hundreds and hundreds of books, some to find only one or two reference in. The internet is (still) not a replacement for these books. Most people, schools and universities don't accept references to webpages (yet), as anybody can get anything onto the internet.

and if the concept of libraries were undone, school and college libraries would be at risk too...

People who didn't want to support new libraries in the early days also argued that 'relatively few' would use them and bookstores would suffer. It was true, to a point, as neighborhoods without public libraries tended to have lower literacy rates

Lower literacy rates mean fewer potential customers at the bookstore too.

I think we need public libraries more than we ever have. He wouldn't have sold nearly as many books if kids hadn't read one or two from their school or public library and wanted more of them

[cromag]

Given the number of authors who make a point touring libraries in support of their books, I'd say many authors don't agree with him, either.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

You have his argument backwards, I think. And you're being unfair to actual points he's making because you don't like his conclusions. *He* is making money hand over fist. His books are very popular and people want them. He's not objecting to the fact that people might not be buying his books; he's objecting to the fact that the government has set up a scheme to give away for free the books the books that he wrote and sells to support himself.

Libraries don't pay for books in the UK? Really?

He's whiny, and doesn't like the first sale doctrine. Not all that unusual, but he's still whiny about it.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by taustin

Libraries don't pay for books in the UK? Really?

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.

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.

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.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by taustin

Libraries don't pay for books in the UK? Really?

The British Library doesn't Nor do the university libraries of Oxford, Cambridge and Trinity College, or the National Libraries of Scotland and Wales. All others do, though.

ETA: What meeera said.

[Sregener]

There are always multiple ways to look at things, but I don't look to children's authors for a good understanding of economics. Whenever someone wants a bigger slice of the pie, I think they forget that the best way to make money is to grow the pie, not the percentage of their slice. Libraries grow the pie of readers. People who read a lot buy more books, and the people who read the most usually cannot afford to buy all the books they've read. But they also tend to give books as gifts, as well as receive them. People who read little will buy little, or not at all, regardless of libraries and public access.

I figured out that I checked out about $10,000 worth of books from the library last year. Having four readers in one household makes a library very useful. And I can't tell you how pleased I am to watch my children get excited when they go to the library and can have anything they want off the shelves. The fact that we do this weekly, and that it doesn't break the budget, is how I'm training up a new generation of readers.

An author who loves books cannot help but be excited to go to a library and see people loving books. An author who loves themselves, who does not see writing as a giving but a taking, will never understand.

[travger]

Isaac Asimov's associate asked for some autographed photos to give to his friends. IA had another proposal: How about I should give them nice autographed books instead. They might read them and give their reading muscles exercise. Then, too, if they should like them they might do the right thing and buy my books. After all, if they like my picture, what will they do? Buy different poses?

[Fat Abe]

Deary is a bit daft about fairness and rights. Copyright law is fairly explicit about multiple uses of a published work. As long as no other party re-publishes the work, second use is permissable in many contexts. Not only can a library lend a copy, but so can an original owner lend it to a friend or relative. Even if there are "performance" rights limitations, one tends to doubt that the government will waste its time prosecuting casual borrowing. Democratic governments are based on laws reached with the consent of the populace. If an author or artist dislikes these laws, then either protest against these policies, or form your own government. Copyright is not an inalienable right or natural law. It is a man-made law.

[Laridae]

My kids are grown up now so I've never heard of Deary. But it seems to me he's missing the point of libraries - afaik they are all about promoting literacy as a social good. In the wider view, as an author he stands to benefit - more literacy; more demand for books in general.

There's also the indirect benefit to him personally. If parents become familiar with his books they are more apt to buy them - it's kind of like free advertising, or an introductory special.

Deary seems like a narrow-minded sourpuss to me with a very self-serving view of the world. Literacy doesn't exist to serve his purpose; he's privileged to have a gift for writing and honoured to have many adoring readers. He's making a contribution to society and co-incidentally making a good living. So, what's he whining about?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Laridae

My kids are grown up now so I've never heard of Deary. But it seems to me he's missing the point of libraries - afaik they are all about promoting literacy as a social good. In the wider view, as an author he stands to benefit - more literacy; more demand for books in general.

There's also the indirect benefit to him personally. If parents become familiar with his books they are more apt to buy them - it's kind of like free advertising, or an introductory special.

Deary seems like a narrow-minded sourpuss to me with a very self-serving view of the world. Literacy doesn't exist to serve his purpose; he's privileged to have a gift for writing and honoured to have many adoring readers. He's making a contribution to society and co-incidentally making a good living. So, what's he whining about?

My dad used to have a saying,"Some people would complain if they were hung with a new rope." What he meant was that some people can't be satisfied no matter what the situation and the unfortunate truth is that he was right.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

Let him withhold his books from libraries. There's plenty of other content to read. And plenty of other authors I will buy from.

He can't "withhold his books from libraries" - at least not in the UK. The Public Lending Right (PLR) payment was introduced as compensation for authors for the fact that the law was changed so as to give libraries the right to lend any book without the author's permission.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He can't "withhold his books from libraries" - at least not in the UK. The Public Lending Right (PLR) payment was introduced as compensation for authors for the fact that the law was changed so as to give libraries the right to lend any book without the author's permission.

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 makes me a little sad when authors can't see the value in libraries to society as a whole because of their all-consuming sense of self-entitlement.