PLR or Public Lending Rights. I first discovered these on monday in my International Issues class and got all upset about them but so many countries have a PLR system I figured I must be missing something so I sought out more information. As of last night I had a better grasp on the systems and the reasons for them but I still didn’t like them and I was going to write a passionate blog post but it was going on ten thirty after a very long day of school work and I just wanted to go to bed. This morning, er, afternoon now, my passion is missing. I guess this will be my sober second thought rather than my passionate musings.
PLR or Public Lending Rights is a system that gives money to authors whose books are loaned out at public libraries. Many countries have a PLR system including the UK, Germany, Australia, and yes Canada. My initial discovery of PLR was the UK system and that is the one I read the most about, but each PLR system is similar.
Why have a PLR? The argument is that authors suffer a loss of revenue from book sales because libraries are purchasing one book then lending it out to many people for free. Because authors are a nation’s public and cultural asset the government must subsidize it’s authors.
Okay, I’ll grant you that yes, many individuals get to read a single library copy that has only been paid for once, but I question the claim of loss of revenue. The assumption is that if a person cannot get a copy of a certain book at the library they will go out and buy it. But then again, maybe they just won’t bother reading it. What about the awareness and free advertising a library gives an author and his/ her works?
Who pays? Each country with a PLR system has set up an annual fund for the administration and disbursement of PLR. ONce the administration costs are taken out, whatever is left is spread among the registered authors based on whatever formula their system is using. In the UK it is based on how many times a book is loaned out in a sample of libraries, in Canada it’s based on how many copies are in a sample of library catalogues. The big thing for me is that it’s not the libraries that pay, at least not directly. There are also caps on how much an author can receive so that a few bestselling authors don’t hog the entire fund. (Along with this is the idea that if your book is so popular, you probably don’t need the subsidy.) In 2010, the Public Lending Right Commission of Canada’s disbursements totalled 9.9 million dollars but individual payments average $583 with the cap at $3486. Obviously, this is not enough for someone to make a living on. But proponents of the system argue it’s not about the money, it’s about the justice of it, the recognition of the author’s rights and how they are suffering from the free public lending of their books.
What get’s my goat: The accusation or insinuation that libraries are somehow stealing from authors. Marian Engel, one of the founders of PLR in Canada openly accused “Canada’s librarians of “ripping off Canada’s writers” by lending out their books for free, thereby undermining their book sales.” (Andreas Schroeder, Canada’s PLR Program: The Untold Story) As a soon to be librarian, and a lifelong user of libraries it’s hard to imagine libraries ripping anyone off. Libraries already do so much with so little, couldn’t they have picked on someone who was actually out there to make a buck rather than an institution that gives everything they take, back to the community.
If it’s about justice, where’s the justice? If it’s about money, go after someone who has some.
Good, if dated, article about the PLR program in the UK: Dworkin, G. (1988) Public Lending Right – The UK Experience. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & Arts 13(1).
2 replies on “Public Lending Rights or If it’s not about the money, why is it about the money?”
So, how about they give the subsidy only to Authors who don’t ever use a Libraries services. You get what you give…??? Maybe they should loan a few books and get their “moneys” worth 🙂
Good Job Reta
This is a brand-new topic for me – I’d never heard of public lending rights – thanks for posting. I’m an ardent defender of the proper compensation of creative artists, mostly because I am one on occasion, but as long as libraries are buying the books legally, the authors should already have been compensated through their royalties. Yes, more than one person may read that single copy, but the same thing often happens when individual consumers purchase books and then loan them to friends or give them away. Singling out libraries, which a) are public institutions there for the benefit of the community and b) don’t make any money from circulating the author’s work, is ludicrous. I agree that libraries essentially provide free publicity to many writers that people would otherwise never be exposed to because the bookstores only display the latest John Grisham or Dan Brown or Harry Potter opus – precisely because they are there to make money. There are many authors I first discovered by browsing my library shelves, and I later purchased many of their books. If there hadn’t been a library, those authors wouldn’t have made more money off me – they would have made NO money off me. As a writer and a future librarian, I’m doubly incensed.