Book People Archive

Re: Internet & Copyright Law

>The library has paid a royalty when they bought the book in the first
>place. The library isn't free, only to the user. and even then it's the tax
>payer who ultimately pays.
>   I would not expect a library to be insulted with a demand for royalty
>> payments and I find it equally insulting to demand the same from
>> internet libraries.
>>
>As with a library book you may read, you might wish to buy it after reading
>it. but again, that book you first read was paid for already. that is why no
>one is concerned about royalties.  (as an aside, Libraries pay more for books
>than say a bookstore does.  the publisher is aware a library owning a book
>might mean lost sales to a small extent.  so they charge the library a
>higher priced book at smaller discount rate.  )
>Anita Barela

I feel this reply has too many assumptions about libraries considering the
number there are and their various policies and practices. The assertion
that libraries pay more for books is particularly dubious. From a quick
phone call to the local public library system here in Western Australia, I
have ascertained that the libraries buy in bulk from wholesale booksellers
and if anything they get a cheaper than retail price. At the same time,
libraries might add value to the physical book, with time spent on
cataloguing, transporting, shelving, booking in & out, and
repairing/covering obviously non of which goes to the copyright holder.
Here in Australia we have a system for repaying copyright holders for
library access, though I understand the evaluation process is under control
of our political masters.

The point remains that a library does not repay the equivalent for each
book on its shelves as does a retail book. However, one has to admit there
is a lot of leeway in the bookselling industry where there are warehouses
of remainders and seconds that support a number of quite successful bargain
bookshops. The bottom line is that an author writes to be read, and
publishing is the opportunity for this. However, the publication of a book
that not everyone will pay to read can be compensated by library exposure.

From my experience of providing internet access to an on-line text, the
process of converting the printed paper form to electronic form involves a
substantial investment of time (I am talking about a novel size text here).
If this time was converted into a cash equivalent, any extra a library
might contribute is a spit in the ocean.

As a writer of a text that sits in our public library, the last thing I
might want would be a piffling royalty payment. I am more concerned about
bread & butter issues of living in bare comfort unmolested by the petty
time & motion accountants of this world.

I am wondering about this retrospective copyright move in Europe. Who
benefits after the author is long dead? Where copyright can be bought and
sold like mining rights, the rationale for due payment to the originator
for work done becomes diffuse. Intellectual capital is one thing. I believe
these latest moves on internet copyright are entirely another thing.

Here in Australia we could be thinking this battle has nothing to do with
us. However, I think there is more to it. First, there is the intimidation
factor, don't put public domain texts on internet because the domain is
shifting and you could be slammed. Second, there is the associated
censorship issue of controlling information on internet. Already there is a
big thing made of pornographic material which I think is a red herring.
Third, there is the potential domination and pay-for-use of huge sectors of
copyright material on the net by cashed up giga interests, namely Bill.
Fourth, the real fear is that the horse may have bolted and commercial
interests are fighting to recover a severely masticated piece, mixed
metaphorically speaking.

Cheers,
Chris.


Dr Chris Floyd
Oral:  +61 8 9339 8632
Ink:   +61 8 9385 7443
mailto:cfloyd@[redacted]
http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/~cfloyd