When I checked the online catalog of the Palo Alto Library soon after publication of Dot Dead, I saw that 80 or so people had reserved it. Here's what I said to myself about that: "Go without a few lattes, you pennypinchers, and buy the damn thing – it’s only $13.95."
I lost the argument with my wife, so I did abandon any notion of blowing up the local branch. Still, as supportive as I am of reading, it does strike me as unfair to authors that libraries buy one copy of their book and thereby enable dozens to read it.
Legislators in 40 other countries have figured out the answer – something called Public Lending Rights. In the UK each time a book is checked out of the library, the author receives a little more than a dime (no, it doesn’t apply to Americans). You’d think that might bankrupt Her Majesty’s Treasury? No, the PLR are not designed to make sure that J.K. Rowling gets even richer. Authors are limited to payments of 6,600 pounds per year. Not a lot, but that $13,000 (at current exchange rates) could really make a difference to authors just starting out. I'm not suggesting a subsidy here. It's payment for services provided. Writers should be paid when their books are read. That's fairness, not a subsidy.
Now the U.S. runs a huge deficit and adding billions to it would make little sense. No fear. Guess how much our cousins across the Atlantic spend on their program? In 2006 the entire shebang cost 7.6M pounds. What would we spend here? $50M? $75M?
So let’s get this straight. Libraries buy. The national government pays writers a small sum each time a book is checked out. Writers make a little extra money from people reading their books. (Writers making money? Call the police!) A literary terrorist is discouraged from throwing a Molotov cocktail through an open window of their local lending library. A great idea? I think so. And not that expensive either, especially considering the benefits.
I lost the argument with my wife, so I did abandon any notion of blowing up the local branch. Still, as supportive as I am of reading, it does strike me as unfair to authors that libraries buy one copy of their book and thereby enable dozens to read it.
Legislators in 40 other countries have figured out the answer – something called Public Lending Rights. In the UK each time a book is checked out of the library, the author receives a little more than a dime (no, it doesn’t apply to Americans). You’d think that might bankrupt Her Majesty’s Treasury? No, the PLR are not designed to make sure that J.K. Rowling gets even richer. Authors are limited to payments of 6,600 pounds per year. Not a lot, but that $13,000 (at current exchange rates) could really make a difference to authors just starting out. I'm not suggesting a subsidy here. It's payment for services provided. Writers should be paid when their books are read. That's fairness, not a subsidy.
Now the U.S. runs a huge deficit and adding billions to it would make little sense. No fear. Guess how much our cousins across the Atlantic spend on their program? In 2006 the entire shebang cost 7.6M pounds. What would we spend here? $50M? $75M?
So let’s get this straight. Libraries buy. The national government pays writers a small sum each time a book is checked out. Writers make a little extra money from people reading their books. (Writers making money? Call the police!) A literary terrorist is discouraged from throwing a Molotov cocktail through an open window of their local lending library. A great idea? I think so. And not that expensive either, especially considering the benefits.
Why not write your senators and representatives about it? I’m going to. And crazy as it seems, I think I’ll bring it up with the boards of the author organizations I belong to: MWA, Sisters in Crime, and International Thriller Writers.
A version of this posting also ran on the Inkspot blog.
Comment from a librarian here.... I can certainly see both sides of this issue. In general, libraries provide a solid source of revenue to publishers and, thereby, to authors. As you might know, US libraries stock many more titles and volumes than UK libraries. Also, public libraries in the US are very local in nature. If such a fee structure were implemented in the US (as has been discussed from time to time), the burden would be borne by local taxpayers, as the fees would, almost certainly, be paid the the funding agency of the library (generally a city or county government). The result would be fewer books purchased by libraries which might--or might not--result in greater sales to authors. For author's who write for children, the result would certainly be far fewer sales and less income. It's a complex situation, is basically what I'm saying.
Posted by: dale_in_queens | May 27, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Lots of readers like to "try before they buy" -- you should assume some of the borrowers will buy subsequent books based on a positive experience reading the first one.
Doesn't help with the catch-22 of getting subsequent books published, of course! How is Two Graves coming along?
Posted by: STS | May 28, 2008 at 02:01 PM