|
Quinquennial Review of the Public
Lending Right
Response of The Library
Association
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The Library Association[i] welcomes this opportunity to comment on Public Lending
Right. We have only a few comments. This, however, reflects
our view that the scheme is still needed and works well, and is
not an indication of lack of interest. We would wish to commend
all those involved with PLR for the smooth way in which the scheme
works, and for the steady way in which PLR has been developed
to remain relevant to the needs of today, and well positioned
to respond to the challenges of tomorrow. We believe that PLR
offers a focused and effective way of rewarding authors for the
lending of their books in public libraries, and would not wish
to see any radical changes made.
2.
Purpose,
Aims and Objectives
2.1.
We share the view expressed in the consultation
document that PLR makes an important contribution to at least
three of DCMS objectives. In particular:
·
Through its international activities it helps
to promote Britain’s success in the field of culture and, by
encouraging reciprocity between national PLR schemes, acts for
the benefit of British authors (supports DCMS Objective 1)
·
Through
the efficient and effective administration of the scheme it
also assists in broadening access to a rich and varied cultural
life – without it complex licensing arrangements would be required
that could act as a barrier to such access (supports DCMS Objective
2)
·
By
rewarding authors for loans of their books from public libraries
it helps to develop and sustain writing talent (Supports DCMS
Objective 4)
2.2.
We believe that PLR should continue to function
as a centrally funded national scheme. In this way it gains
the UK derogation from the provisions of the European Council
Directive on Rental and Lending in regard to books. It also
simplifies the process of incorporating an acknowledgement of
intellectual property rights within a public library lending
system, and ensures that the cost of compliance is met economically
as a central government cost, rather than borne locally, probably
at the expense of bookfunds.
2.3.
We would counsel only one extension to the scheme
at this stage. We believe that the case for bringing spoken
word material into the scheme is good. Spoken word material
is, as its name suggests, closely related to books – it is a
book transferred, often in its entirety, to a new medium. The
purpose of spoken word material is to widen access to the riches
within books, notably to those with a visual impairment, for
whom the book is literally a “closed book”. We would therefore
urge PLR to continue its research into this issue and draw up
a model scheme for consideration. We are less convinced about
extensions of the Scheme to other media certainly as an immediate
priority - but would view sympathetically an extension to reference
material if a suitable method of measuring use could be devised
that was not too cumbersome to implement.
3.
Organisation,
Functions and Delivery Mechanisms
3.1.
We
believe that PLR might improve and extend its services in two
areas:
·
The database of authors, titles and loans is capable
of wider exploitation. We suggest that PLR should investigate
making this more accessible. Public library authorities, publishers,
booksellers, policy developers working on cultural issues, academics,
journalists as well as writers, would all potentially have an
interest in this. Clearly some market research would be required
to ascertain likely demand and the types of usage that might
be expected. Technical feasibility would also be a factor.
·
The public library community could be promoted
as a more integral part of the scheme, by becoming a front end
of the process, and actively encouraging the registration of
authors. This would not only help to raise the public profile
of PLR, but also encourage newer, and more local and regional
writers to register. Registration might be offered through
the People’s Network for instance.
3.2.
We also have one suggestion for a small change
to the scheme. Our concern from the outset of PLR has been
that PLR should be seen to support living and newer or first-time
authors rather than the estates of rich and successful writers.
Now that the rules have been changed, in the light of European
requirements, so that the estates of authors will receive payments
from PLR for 70 years, we suggest that a bequest scheme is introduced,
making it simple for those writers that wish to, to donate their
PLR payments back into the general pool.
3.3.
We regard the Advisory Committee as being an essential
ingredient of the success of PLR. It provides a voice for the
key stakeholders in the management of PLR and so helps to keep
PLR in touch with its constituencies. Equally important it
provides an important source of expert advice to PLR on matters
that its small staff could not be expected to cover in the necessary
depth. It has also demonstrated its ability to develop a firm
direction for PLR and positively influence the opinions and
decisions of the sponsoring department, DCMS.
3.4.
Our overall impression is that PLR is very effectively
managed. Its great achievement over the past five years has been
to administer the scheme successfully and without fuss. Those
librarians who have worked in sample library services remark on
how little the requirements of PLR interfere or impinge on running
the library service. The small investment in PLR has certainly
reaped a big reward in meeting the claims for recompense by authors
and improving relations between the various parts of the book
world.
4.
Customer
Relations and Responsiveness
4.1.
As stated above, we think PLR is a well-run scheme.
However, perhaps because of its no-fuss approach, its profile
is probably quite low within the broader public library community.
A more positive engagement with a wider cross-section of the sector
might well lead to a greater appreciation of its work. The two
suggestions for new services we have made – using public libraries
as a front-end for the PLR system (by encouraging registration)
and more effective marketing of the PLR database – would both
help to raise the profile of PLR. As it is the one point at which
PLR gains widespread publicity – the point at which it publishes
the 100 most borrowed authors – often leads to libraries being
attacked for providing “pops on the rates”. Greater access to
the PLR database may help to mitigate this problem.
5.
Linking
with Other Organisations
5.1.
One outcome of PLR should be recognised. The
removal of the authors’ grievance, at receiving no recompense
for the loan of their books from public libraries, has contributed
to the good relations now enjoyed between public libraries and
authors. It has therefore helped the creation of partnerships
between libraries, authors and other elements of the book world,
which have been an essential feature of reader development projects
in libraries (many supported by the DCMS/Wolfson awards).
5.2.
PLR should also be commended on their international
work. Their leadership in establishing an international network
of PLR schemes and encouraging the development of such schemes
in other countries is very impressive. The principle of reciprocity
is important and needs to be pursued further.
6.
New
Technology
6.1.
We have covered this area in our points concerning
the development and marketing of the PLR database. We also note
that technology has been an important element in ensuring that
the necessary data is collected from the sample public library
authorities without unnecessary disruption to their work.
7.
Conclusion
7.1.
As can be seen we believe that PLR is working well
as it is. It manages the scheme effectively and is alive to the
need for change and the potential of development. In some areas
PLR has done outstandingly well, its leadership role internationally
being a case in point. We believe that PLR demonstrates that
a small, but focused, organisation is well-able to deliver the
goods effectively.
Contact Point
at The library Association:
Guy
Daines
Principal Policy Adviser
The Library Association
Tel: 020 7255 0632
E-mail: guy.daines@la-hq.org.uk
[i] The Library Association is the professional
body for library and information personnel. It has 24,000
members working in all sectors of the economy. Under the terms
of our Royal Charter, awarded in 1898, The Library Association
has, amongst other duties, responsibilities to:
·
Promote
and encourage the maintenance of adequate and appropriate
provision of library and information services of various kinds
throughout the UK
· Promote the better management of library
and information services
· Promote the knowledge, skills, position
and qualifications of librarians and information personnel
· Maintain a register of Chartered members,
qualified to practise as professional librarians and information
personnel
·
Represent
and act as the professional body for persons working in or
interested in library and information services.
In April 2002, the Library Association and the Institute
of Information Scientists will unify to form a new professional
body called CILIP: the Chartered Institute of Library and
Information Professionals.
|
