Sure now I buy my books, pay quite a lot in property taxes for my local library so others that are like me 20 years ago can have the same opportunities, the same way I pay for schooling for all local children indifferent of origin, status… and I would not dream of complaining

Again there are enough authors out there that are happy too write, libraries or not, it’s not that we are lacking in that domain

I seem to remember Dickens wasn’t too fond of the way *his* works were regularly ripped off through lack of copyright laws. (Bad laws are better than no laws.)

As I said, there’s a lot of valid discussion subjects in the publishing arena and a lot of things that need serious changing. Libraries, for all their faults (at least in the US) are closer to being a *solution* than a problem.

Now, as to the growing sense of entitlement of the masses: yes… and no…

Like so many things in the US, what you see in the media is just part of the story. Yes, a *lot* of people are in fact quite happy to live as wards of the state, even in the US. Not 42%, though. Not even close. We’re not *that* far on the road to becoming PEEPS…

And, given a choice, a very large majority of american *don’t* want to go down that road which is why there is such a… strong… debate (retroactive though it may be) on the so-called corporate bailouts.
(For an example of how some american communities handle disasters, check out the stories from the midwest floods last week; Fargo and other areas. Yes, the government had a role; but the community dug in (literally) and made sure they did all they could for themselves and each other and didn’t just sit passively waiting for somebody to come save them. Those folks got a tough row to hoe but they did themselves proud. No Peeps there…)

When it comes to information access and education there is only so much that can be done without active interest from the intended recipients, which is why I said there is a social problem in that the people that would most benefit from public libraries are the ones that least avail themselves of those services. But that doesn’t mean that the libraries are not a net positive in our communities; in many cases their services are, in fact, the dividing line between the poor that move up in life and those relegated to the underclass for life; whether it be internet access or adult education services, our libraries are more than just repositories for treeware.

Properly managed, libraries, like our many non-government social assistance organizations, are instruments of class mobility and a bulwark against statism in at least some of its forms.

Add in that, since we don’t have a unitary government and the libraries are local resources, we see them as *our* instruments, not instruments of the government. That’s why you got a strong reaction; cause ’round these parts libraries are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

In the past I’ve heard that perhaps 15 percent of libraries’ operational budgets are going for actual content, at least here in the States. I’d like to see the percentage doubled or tripled eventually even though I recognize the need for, say, reference help. It can take weeks and weeks just to get a paper book on the shelf. But all this doesn’t take away the need of libraries; here’s to making them more efficient, such as through use of E!

Thanks,
David

My post was not aimed at Americans. It is about British libraries, and in Britain we are ruled by a kleptocracy which maintains a vast client state, of which the libraries are just one tiny part … some 42% of the working population is on the government payroll. Among these people a deep sense of entitlement has arisen; I see the same is taking hold in the US.

FYI I have put all my novels online for free download. If a reader enjoys one, I ask him/her for $1.50 per title. That’s pretty open access to information, I think you will agree. Moreover I’m not forcing anyone to do anything he/she doesn’t want to do. So you can take your offensive lecture about rights and responsibilities and put it wherever you like, as long as it’s nowhere near me.

In The United States, library exemptions are at the heart of every single copyright law going back to the days of the robber barons. (Andrew Carnegie probably bought himself a ticket out of hell that way.
Public libraries transcend left/right, liberal/conservative boundaries and it is beyond politics. It is a cornerstone of american individualism.

Britain may be different (”offical secrets act” and all that) but ’round these parts library funding is a *local* grassroots effort, not a top-down statist mandate. Every country or city runs its own library system, sets its rules, and chooses what services to provide. What nobody debates is the *need* for public libraries.

Not going to hit you with the open sourcerors baloney mantra (”Information wants to be free”? Yeah, right…) but on this side of the pond *our* social contract holds that the road to personal freedom pegins with freedom of information. (Freedom of the press, freedom of expression, etc.) Libraries are the way we *ensure* that those that want to learn *can* learn; the last ditch defense against crappy school systems and mass-media control.

Way *not* a “liberal/statist” mindset.

If anything, it is the “east coast elitists” who see free information flow as a bad thing for their cause and even they would never dare directly tangle with that.

Obviously, things are different elsewhere, but whatever conditions might prevail in your neighborhood, they clearly do not pertain in the land of “we, the people”.

Wow!

@ficbot “The library is a place for people to learn, to gather, to discover new authors, to research, to collaborate, to learn about their culture, their language, their history.” Yes, a good idea, but it’s not like that, not in Britain anyway. Libraries have become mainly a source of entertainment, and they don’t do that very well, either.

@David — we differ politically; I believe the money that governments waste on undertakings of many kinds, including libraries, would be better spent if left in the pockets of the people who earn it. The wage/pension costs of the library system must be colossal. There must be something wrong when 95% of authors — the ones making the whole thing happen — are paid worse than a library janitor. My central point is perhaps that governments have fostered the idea that reading should be “free”.

@Robert — that’s all good, but why not go the final step and pay authors properly per loan?

@Jon — my output is severely reduced. I have been writing professionally for over 30 years and have produced only six novels. You clearly think this is a good thing, though it would be better if I, and everyone else since 1929, had produced none at all. Actually I am well aware that writing is a mug’s game, which is why, these days, I do so little of it.

I wonder if you have the same attitude towards other areas of human endeavour — painting, say, or music, or healthcare.

Once a book is in print, authors are unable to prevent it from being stocked by libraries. Publishers use, or perhaps did use, libraries as a fail-safe market. The managing director of William Heinemann even once used the term “library-fodder” in my presence. Another good reason to stop the flow of novels …

But as long as people go on thinking they have books in them, and insisting on letting them out, the supply of books will continue to grossly outweigh the demand, and institutions like libraries will function to bring the average price of a book over time down to its market level of just above zero.

If Herley wants to withhold his book from libraries, that’s fine: but why stop there? Why not also withhold it from bookshops and publishers, who both get a much larger slice than the author, and adopt the time-honoured practice of hawking it along Grub Street with a bundle of copies under his arm? He will not sell many copies, to be sure, but he can take comfort in the fact that he is getting the absolute maximum of personal profit from each one.

In my city Houston, libraries are kind of a community area where people can borrow laptops, use the Internet and take advantage of the free wifi. Believe it or not, a lot of people don’t have easy access to computers and/or Internet. Also, libraries are meeting places; I have organized meetings for 2 clubs there (a storytelling club and an OLPC club) and a source of cheap entertainment. For those who can’t rent movies or go to shows, libraries offer lots of options for entertaining/educating children. Also, a city library can disseminate lots of useful information (IRS info, local events, etc).

About distributing print books, I am less comfortable. Acquisitions are behind the curve on a lot of things, and frankly have to be responsive to what the public is clamoring for (instead of what enhances the library’s collection). Since I publish online mainly, of course, my material will never be found as a print object in a library. Also, even if I self-published a print-book, it’s unlikely that my city library would even carry it.

I wouldn’t mind libraries being asked to pay for a digital object according to the amount of usage it has received. For example, if patrons request a digital ebook from the library, the library should be able to keep track of how many times it has been checked out and pay for the ebook accordingly. I’m not sure city budgets will be happy with this.

On the other hand, public libraries came about as a result of the scarcity of books .Perhaps in a post-scarce age, it is no longer necessary for libraries to make purchases for you. That said, I find I check out fewer books than ever and I buy more (print) books than ever as well. That’s more a result of the fact that declining prices of used books makes it silly for anyone not to buy the print book. In 5-10 years, this happy time of cheap used books will have long since passed.

Librarians are marketers for the book business, and it’s a shame that many publishers, authors and booksellers don’t appreciate the ecosystem of their own industry. Are public libraries inefficient? Yes. Should we get rid of them? No.

Instead we need to modernize them and use them as community and tech centers and, yes, places to find paper books–while meantime we work toward well-stocked national digital library systems in the U.K., Canada, the States and elsewhere.

That’s just a partial answer to Richard, but I hope it will help get both sides thinking.

As for financing, my approach is somewhat different from Ficbot’s. I’d point out that Americans and others are spending just a fraction on content compared to the pipes and other technology. Given the benefits of libraries, I’m not afraid to suggest that libraries deserve more tax money, despite my frustrations with their inefficiencies. With so many books pulped, I don’t think that the private side of the book world is perfect, either.

Censorship? Well, I don’t think libraries should be the only outlets for books. I want a strong retail sector, too—so people can buy books that bureaucrats frown upon. But guess what? Who says the ‘crats will automatically censor? The city-room language in The Solomon Scandals just might get banned from the Apple App store. And yet my novel is about to be available through a public library. ALA tends to be fiercely anti-censor.

Just my opinions. While I disagree with Richard, I am, like Paul, happy to see him here to express his genuine opinions.

Thanks,
David

I would go further and argue that Mr. Herley’s ability to write and not make money at it is due only to the prosperity of our Western society unless he is a rich dilettante – good luck for him to be a writer in a poor society, where even being literate would have been an achievement, and Public Libraries have been a cornerstone of equalizing opportunity with respect to literacy.

I suggest we call time on Mr. Herley’s frustration rants