Categories
LIBR559M

Creating social capital through collaboration or getting together to make it worth your while

So topic of the week in Social Media class is collaboration, more specifically collaboration with social media. We also worked in groups on a wiki entry. Our group did a wiki entry on social media for youth services:Social Strategies for Youth Service Librarians.

While doing research for the wiki I rediscovered a youth services program using social media and involving collaboration, (or maybe cooperation in some cases. For the difference see Jessica’s excellent post.) The program is TeenRC. It is a social networking site for teens that revolves around reading, writing, literature and other materials. It was developed and is administered by dedicated youth services librarians, but it’s content is teen created. Teens create a catalog of books they have read or would like to read, they can write reviews, share their own writing, have discussions (not just limited to literature) in the forums, and there are regular special events like author visits and interviews, or contests.

It seems like a fantastic site with a lot to offer but libraries have tried to run sites like this before and since without success. Either the administrators lose funding or interest or the teens don’t join. One of the things that really makes this site work is the number of libraries collaborating on the project. There are 332 participating libraries with TeenRC.  Not all of those libraries have creative control over the project of course, but they are involved and this means the site is available and suggested to a much larger audience. If you can get a small number of teens to join from each of those libraries you end up with a pretty good user base. If they like it, they will spread the word and you will get more teens joining in. And they are more likely to like it, the more people that are on it because social networking sites grow in social capital as they grow in size. This make a larger social networking site more valuable to an individual and more likely to stick around.

Now I’m only brushing on social capital which is a complex sociological theory and I can’t find the article I originally read about social capital and social networking sites (if anyone has a good link, post it in the comments!). As I understand it and remember it, social capital is the value we derive from our social networks (online, offline, professional, social, familial, etc.). The larger and more connected our networks the more value they have. The strength of the connections is important too, so there have to be a balance between quality and quantity. (Think of the person with 1000 facebook friends, does he really know all those people, does he get anything beyond a number on his page from them.) For a social networking site to be of value it have to have many subscribers, thereby offering it’s users the opportunity to expand and strengthen their social networks.

The same rules apply to libraries trying to use social media in programming. You have to use existing social media with enough social capital, or at least potential, or it won’t offer the user anything and the project will flop from lack of users. Or in the case of TeenRC, create your own social networking site, but collaborate with others to ensure a good start up group size and encourage growth from there. The collaboration also means reaching people geographically distant with is one of the great affordances of online social networks.

I really like TeenRC. I haven’t really gotten into the site because to take full advantage of it you have to be registered and to be a registered user you have to be a teen, but I like the idea and I will follow it’s development. I hope it continues to grow and change and live.

Categories
LIBR562

Public Lending Rights or If it’s not about the money, why is it about the money?

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).

Spam prevention powered by Akismet