The hole in his argument is that not everyone who borrows a book would buy it, the same as not everyone who copies an album would buy the album. They might easily live without it. On the other hand, people exposed to certain authors through lending libraries might eventually buy at least some of their books.
At 11:30 PM 23/11/2008, Mario wrote:
>--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "m23to53" <library.john@...> wrote:
>> Here in the UK we have a scheme called Public Lending Right, through
>> which authors, who have signed up to the scheme, get payments based
>> on the loans of their books. Not great but handy sums.
>> It is based on lending figures from a selection of libraries which
>> are changed at frequent intervals, so can be a bit hit or miss for
>> less popular authors who may not be bought by every library. Not sure
>> if overseas authors are allowed to participate. If you want to know
>> more, PLR's website is www.plr.uk.com/
>This arrangement strikes me as fair. If copyrighted music yields money
>when broadcast by stations and movies yield money when shown publicly,
>I don't see why books that are made available to the public should be
>any different. Right now, in the US, they are treated like public
>sculpture... a freebie.
>The argument that Constantine's Mad Russian makes is that each time
>the book is borrowed he is losing royalties on a copy sold. I don't
>know that there is a valid argument against this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Nov 2008 EST