Brian Edwards Public Libraries Are Theft

Why Public Libraries are just a Form of Theft @ Br... http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:5H4CFBrX...
This is Google's cache of http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/09/why-public-libraries-

are-just-a-form-of-theft/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 28 Sep 2009 20:53:07
GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: Text-only version
http brianedwardsmedia co nz 2009 09 why public libraries are just a form of theft
ShareThis
Brian Edwards Media

Why Public Libraries are just a
Form of Theft
Posted by BE on September 23rd, 2009
So you’ve just been reading in the paper about the zillions

of dollars Dan Brown will make from The Lost Symbol to add to the zillions of
dollars he made from The Da Vinci Code and the zillions more he made from
the re-release of all his earlier books. And you’re thinking, ‘I should write a
book. Even with a fraction of Dan Brown’s royalties, I’d be sitting pretty.’ You
would, but you won’t - unless, like Lloyd Jones, you’re shortlisted for the
Booker Prize and that’s unlikely. For the rest of us Kiwi hacks, there’s very
little money in writing books.
I’m not really complaining. There are only 4½ million of us and, despite the
fact that we’re keen readers, that’s a pretty small market.
What pisses me off as an author is that for every person who buys your book,
dozens of others get to read it for nothing. Let me give you an example. A few
years back I wrote a biography of Helen Clark. It took about six months to
write and during that time I had effectively no other income. The book retailed
at $45. On the standard author’s royalty of 10%, I got $4.50 for every copy
1 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
sold. Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister sold 9,000 copies, a reasonable if not
spectacular figure in the New Zealand market. So I got $40,500 before tax for
my six month’s work.
I’m not complaining about that either. But…
Every public library in New Zealand bought at least one copy of Helen. And
they lent each of those copies to other people to read for… nothing. Last year
there were still 227.4 copies of the book in New Zealand public libraries. If
each of those copies was taken out by one person a month, that’s 2,729 people
who read but didn’t pay for my book - my six month’s work. At $4.50 per
unsold copy, that’s a theoretical loss of income to me in one year of $12,280.
But wait! We have something in Godzone called the New Zealand Authors’
Fund. Recognising that easy access to books is in the public interest, that
authors should therefore be encouraged to write books for people to read and
that, as Jesus taught, ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’, the Fund was set up
to pay New Zealand authors a sum of money for each and every copy of each
and every one of their books held in a public library, providing there were at
least 50 copies of each book. Hooray!
But wait, there’s more! Regardless of the length of the book, the time it took to
write or how many people borrowed it, everyone was paid the same. Good old
Kiwi egalitarianism in action. The current rate is $2.6488 per copy. So for the
227.4 copies of the Helen biography I get paid $602.34 to compensate me for
the $12,280 I would have earned if all of those borrowers had bought a copy
for themselves. Nett loss per annum $11,677. The Helen book was published 8
years ago. Do the math.
OK, it’s a good thing that people can go to a public library and borrow a book
to read. Lots of books even. And obviously only a fraction of the 2,729 people
who notionally borrowed Helen, Portrait of a Prime Minister, would have
bought a copy from Whitcoulls, Borders or Paper Plus if public libraries had
been banned. And yes, fewer and fewer people would have taken the book out
each year after publication.
But there’s a principle here: when one person buys a book and lends it to
another person to read, they effectively become an accessory to theft. Their
generous act amounts to little more than stealing the author’s work. When a
public library buys a book and lends it to thousands of other people to read,
it’s grand theft copyright and really no different from illegally downloading
music or movies or copying CDs or DVDs on your computer.
If governments want to argue that it’s in the national interest for citizens to
read and be informed, then either the governments or the citizens should
2 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
recognise the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.
There would be two ways of doing that - direct and indirect. The direct method
would involve borrowers paying a fee each time they took out a book, that fee
to go to the author or the author’s estate. The indirect method would link the
Authors’ Fund payments to the number of borrowings rather than the number
of books held in libraries. Why should already impoverished writers have to
subsidise the public good? And why should the author with a permanent
waiting list for his or her books at the library subsidise the author nobody
wants to read? User pays, my friend, user pays.
As to what the fee should be, I’m not suggesting it should match the author’s
royalty. We don’t want to be greedy. But 25% of the royalty might be
reasonable and just enough to keep the wolf away from some future Janet
Frame’s door.
And, by the way, a fee based on borrowings would hugely benefit the authors of
children’s books and therefore the nation’s children.
Finally, will the person who failed to return .6 of Helen, Portrait of a Prime
Minister to their local public library, thereby reducing the total number of
available copies to 227.4, please do the decent thing and return the missing
pages. You may want to use the after hours box to avoid embarrassment. No
questions will be asked.
Note: In the original version of this post I used the word

“bludgers” in reference to library borrowers. As numerous
commentators observed, the term was inappropriate and
offensive and I have removed it from the text.
Crime, New Zealand Authors' Fund, Public Libraries
175 Comments:
1.
Sean September 23rd, 2009 at 16:52
Hmmm, slippery slope Brian.
While I do acknowledge that authorship in New Zealand is not the

pathway to champagne wishes and caviar dreams, if you make it to
expensive to access information you raise a barrier to it. If the barrier is
3 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
to great, well the individual who invests their time in finding the
information on Helen Clark may go to a cheaper alternative source.
Say ‘Investigate’ magazine, or the Kiwiblog comments section.
Public libraries in New Zealand, provide a vital service to the public by

increasing the resources for people who could not purchase them for
themselves. Directly passing an additional cost onto the consumer would
limit this role.
2.
River Howe September 23rd, 2009 at 21:18
Hm, interesting thoughts, Brian. Does seem a bit unfair, but does this
mean that we should no longer borrow anything from anyone else? If I
borrow a chainsaw, am I depriving the manufacturer of a sale? Not
necessarily.
Similarly if I read a book from the library or listen to a copy of some music
I wouldn’t necessarily have gone out and bought that book, or the music.
it could be argued that any budding author should be aware of the
existence of libraries and how they operate and factor in that their book
may well end up there, like a zillion others before them.
What about buying a book second hand? Should a proportion of the sale
go to the author, like what was proposed for art work?
Hmmm.
3.
paul reynolds September 23rd, 2009 at 23:08
Brian
Leaving aside the public good /public value the community has invested
in, and subsequently earned from, public libraries over the last 150 years,
I think you are confusing interest with ownership.
If I have an interest in an author’s idea or imagination I might buy their

work, or, alternatively, I might borrow a copy of the work.
However, if I want to own a copy of an authors work, I will buy it.
There is no theft involved. It’s a choice I have.
4 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
As to the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to lend books to others -

forgive me - it’s twaddle on sticks as I am sure you well know.
That said, if you are in the mood for a decent argument, why not direct
your considerable intellect to the other end of the proposition - and ask
why the author only gets 10% of the value - why not 50% - then you could
have earned $200,000?
4.
BE September 24th, 2009 at 00:09
Brian Leaving aside the public good /public value the community has
invested in, and subsequently earned from, public libraries over the last
150 years, I think you are confusing interest with ownership.
Well, of course I agree that the individual buyer of a book is fully entitled
to lend it to anyone they want. The institutional buyer is another matter
altogether. The difference is one of scale and of the essentially contractual
nature of the arrangement. I’m not going to resile from my point, that
library lending deprives authors of significant income. I agree that it is
iniquitous that publishers and retailers get up to three times more than
authors, but the free lending of the author’s work to tens of thousands of
people by public libraries merely adds insult to injury.
5.
Hm, interesting thoughts, Brian. Does seem a bit unfair, but does this
mean that we should no longer borrow anything from anyone else? If I
borrow a chainsaw, am I depriving the manufacturer of a sale? Not
necessarily.
There is no intellectual property in a chainsaw, unless someone is going to

steal the design or patent. As to one person lending a book to another, see
my reply to Paul Reynolds. If you can tell me how any budding author
could “factor in” library lending to his work, I’d be delighted to know.
6.
5 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Hmmm, slippery slope Brian.
Your position seems to be that it’s the author’s duty to subsidise those
who can’t afford to buy his/her books. Should the musician, painter,
sculptor, architect take the same view? I can tell you, I’d love to own a
Rita Angus or even a Dick Frizell, but there’s no way I could afford to buy
one. I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade Dick to reduce his asking price
to what I can afford. He’s an artist, not a charitable institution. If
individuals or the state want to take the high moral ground on this, let
them put their money where their mouth is, not take it out of my and
other writers’ pockets.
7.
richard September 24th, 2009 at 02:02
I think that the core argument here is specious. I’d love for some NZ
librarian to let us know how the book actually circulates, before accepting
your hypothetical income loss amount. It’s also more than a little
egotistical to imagine that everyone who checked the book out (however
many that actually turns out to be) would have otherwise purchased a
copy. The bulk purchase for NZ public libraries might even be the most
money you would ever have been likely to make, along with academic
libraries.
8.
Matthew Holloway September 24th, 2009 at 02:58
“Should the musician, painter, sculptor, architect take the same view? I
can tell you, I’d love to own a Rita Angus or even a Dick Frizell, but
there’s no way I could afford to buy one.”
Surely by now you can afford one by now Brian? Even an old, used one?
In your article you’re interchangeably describing (1) the theft of a

physical work, (2) making a legal copy perhaps by taking a photo, and (3)
looking at a thing. Only some of these have anything to do with copyright
and licensing, and muddling these up is disingenuous.
Copyright is a balance of public and private rights; it always has been,

and that balance is codified in law more so here in New Zealand than in
countries with Fair Use defenses. The US define the goal of role of
6 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
copyright as to progress the arts, and New Zealand lawmakers have

similar ideas about how to design that balance.
We were one of the first countries to tip the balance in favour of the public
by guaranteeing disabled people equality in access to books (regardless of
the desires of authors). I’m proud to say other countries have now
followed New Zealands lead. At the time authors called these disabled
people thieves and criminals, much like you have here. However it’s also
worth noting that over the exact same period New Zealand reduced the
amount of text that public educators could copy in favour of private
author rights. So these authors “steal” from the public? Just another form
of theft?
Debating the balance in terms of “theft”, “crime” and stealing is

unnecessarily combative, and I’d say unpersuasive. If you’re going to
convince the public to give up free libraries then you’ll need to recognize
it as a negotiation.
Your assertions about the economics of this, the mythical lost sale from a
lent book, are one way of looking at it.
Others see libraries as stimulating the publics’ interest in books with

what’s essentially a time-limited sample that encourages more people to
buy, much like a radio station that promotes and plays songs that you may
later purchase. Authors get publicly subsidised promotion at zero cost,
and one could say that authors should pay libraries for the advertising!
I’ve bought books that I’ve read in libraries as I’m sure many others have
too. My interest in odd topics has been maintained with library books, and
has encouraged the odd purchase or two. What’s going on at libraries is
more sophisticated than lost sales.
The assertions of what benefits New Zealand as a whole will only get us so
far. You’ve asserted that New Zealand children would benefit in a lone
sentence backed only by -it seems- a new take on trickle down economics.
We need surveys, economic models, theories, and testing to see how

people use libraries to even attempt to answer the questions raised here.
Perhaps there are some parallels to be drawn here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney
/21view.html?_r=1
and
http://newmusicstrategies.com/2007/04/15/thing-11-the-death-of-scarcity/
Libraries have not yet distributed their content on the internet, and so
7 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
user pays per-unit is the norm online.
But selling individual digital copies in an age without copying costs may
no longer be the best business model for authors, or musicians.
A Spotify-like service for books, perhaps something like the publisher

O’Reilly’s service called Safari might better serve authors and the public.
To me that sounds like something the public would get behind.
9.
Jonathan Hattrell September 24th, 2009 at 09:32
I hope the cartoonist, who drew the cheeky thief with the magnifying
glass, got his/her royalty. (Perhaps on a pay-per-view basis?)
10.
I hope the cartoonist, who drew the cheeky thief with the magnifying
glass, got his/her royalty. (Perhaps on a pay-per-view basis?)
The cartoon comes from a clip art and illustration site. Many of the
pictures are marked RF for ‘royalty free’. This is one such. Good try
though, Jonathan.
11.
Ben September 24th, 2009 at 10:10
As a bludger who makes full use of public libraries I have a certain

sympathy with your argument. I think I might be prepared to pay to
borrow a book, since I can afford to, but there are many who are not so
lucky and as a good socialist I would have thought you would have
recognised this. Do you really want to find yourself on the same side as
Rodney hide?
I am also a regular purchaser of books, CDs and DVDs and many of these
purchases are inspired by something I have borrowed from the library;
note I do not copy library materials which really is theft.
8 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
The origins of the public library system were to make books widely
available for those who could not afford to buy books. I think as an
established bludger I would have to disagree with you. Your remedy lies
either in screwing more out of the publisher or reverting to an earlier role
and promoting encyclopaedias (as per your earlier blog). And incidentally
I have not read your biography of HC and would have required to be paid
to do so; nothing personal but I put politicians’ biographies in the same
category as those of sportsmen and celebrities - to be avoided at all cost.
12.
PS According to your principles I assume you never lend books to or

borrow from friends.
13.
Mickey Rodent September 24th, 2009 at 10:15
Everyone who enjoys reading will be somewhat disappointed (if not

slightly aghast) by your stance against the function of libraries — that is:
Availability. Truly. As a writer with a renowned strong social conscience,
your thoughts run counter to the notion as to what libraries represent.
Magnanimity is replaced by Meanness. Generosity of the Spirit, in
sharing, is lost to Self. Maybe a little harsh, but that’s the impression
which is registered in this reader’s mind.
Libraries form a vital community service transcending the lending of

books, itself. But you portray them as being parasitic demons that eat into
your livelihood. I’d be surprised if your fellow writers would agree with
you. In fact, I’d go a little further and suggest you’re revealing an
unmistakable heretical bent, to them.
I think you’ve adopted a very myopic viewpoint and I’m inclined to think
you, overstate, as to how much impact the libraries actually have in
eroding potential sales — and royalties — at the bookshop.
By your own admission, many of the borrowers would probably not have
bought the book anyway. I’d take the view that these borrowers may help
to stimulate sales by way of their enthusiastic recommendations to friends,
relatives, work colleagues etc - who may elect to go out and purchase the
book as opposed to borrowing it from the library. I, for one, regard one of
9 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
life’s luxuries as reading a good book, snugly ensconced under my duvet.

For reasons of hygiene I never take a book to bed when it’s passed
through many - unknown - hands. There’s something quite repellent in
reading a book that’s stain-marked with food, grime etc. (And I’m not
referring to erotica books, either).
Finally, this: “But there’s a principle here: when one person buys a book
and lends it to another person to read, they effectively become an
accessory to theft”. Would an extrapolation of this, be — that, if I buy a
music CD and play it at home, then I usher family members out of the
listening room or else put on headphones? We each buy our own books (no
sharing of same title), newspapers etc?
14.
Surely by now you can afford one by now Brian? Even an old, used one?
You describe parts of what I wrote as disingenuous. I’d describe parts of

what you’ve written as jesuitical sophistry. I very much doubt that authors
get very much “free advertising” from the presence of their books in
libraries. Who are the buyers influenced by this advertising? I’ve written
half a dozen books or more and I know what sells - good promotion and
excellent reviews.
In the end what the author is selling is his words and thoughts which are
protected by copyright. In a technical sense - and that is the sense in
which you want to treat this matter - the library is not breaching the
author’s copyright. But by distributing his words and thoughts to a wide
audience for nothing the effect is the same as a large scale breach of
copyright. The library plays Robin Hood - taking from the not-so-rich to
give to the poor. Very noble, I’m sure, but theft nonetheless.
Then you want to attribute other people’s views to me. I have no difficulty
at all with the idea that the disabled should have absolue equality in
access to books, or indeed that beneficiaries should have special status in
the sort of arrangements I’m proposing. I dislike this sort of guilt by
association tactic. I might even call it disingenuous.
15.
10 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
It’s also more than a little egotistical to imagine that everyone who
checked the book out
You may have missed the line in my blog which says, ‘And obviously only a
fraction of the 2,729 people who notionally borrowed Helen, Portrait of a
Prime Minister, would have bought a copy from Whitcoulls, Borders or
Paper Plus if public libraries had been banned.’ Perhaps you have
difficulty reading.
As to the ‘bulk purchase’ being ‘the most money you would ever have
been likely to make, along with academic libraries”, I gave the number of
copies of the Helen book in public libraries as 227. Perhaps you missed
that as well.
16. Tweets that mention Why Public Libraries are just a Form of Theft @
Brian Edwards Media -- Topsy.com September 24th, 2009 at 10:40
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Su Yin Khoo and shinylib.
shinylib said: Um, insanity. RT @juhasaarinen: http://bit.ly/1XCMUZ
Former journo turned PR Brian Edwards claims public libraries are theft.
[...]
17.
Juha September 24th, 2009 at 10:48
Theft of intellectual property is clearly something that cannot be allowed

to continue and therefore, public libraries should be closed.
We should examine the role of public broadcasting in the light of this too,
ditto school materials.
Have you seen Google Books yet, Brian? What do you think of that?
18.
paul reynolds September 24th, 2009 at 10:50
This is fun!
Can you have another go?
If so - I have two points to make .

First - and this is just for target practice really - re the Brian point - ” I’d
11 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
love to own a Rita Angus or even a Dick Frizell, but there’s no way I could
afford to buy one. I don’t think I’ll be able to persuade Dick to reduce his
asking price to what I can afford. He’s an artist, not a charitable
institution.”
We bought a Dick Frizell. It is one of his Antarctica series. It hangs on our

living room wall and is daily joy to look at.
I doubt if we own it though - it still “belongs to Dick F” in as much as he

painted it and the energy and talent invested in it is still his, and always
will be.
This work is one of a series. Some of them are big works - and, like many
other works by premier New Zealand artists, are now in various public art
institutions. Te Papa has bought a bunch of his stuff - as has Auckland Art
Gallery, and a whole bunch of other public galleries.
Being public art galleries, we get to look at them. Is this wrong? Seems
like it might be in terms of the the good Dr’s analysis .
Back to Libraries
Point two - and definitely on a serious note, can we go back to the library
argument again - and ask, what happens to the Helen Clark biography
after it goes out of print? How do people access this work of
scholarship/political history.
Are we to scour the second hand bookshops - or will we go into the public
library and research its contents [and quote it under fair use rules]
alongside other works which are looking at the legacy of the Helen Clark
administration.
In short are we to give up the whole idea of public libraries as a public

good - for both author and reader - so that the good Dr B can afford a Dick
Frizell?
19.
“I very much doubt that authors get very much “free advertising” from
the presence of their books in libraries.”
Here we are again, back at the start. Assertions can only go so far, Brian.
Are you honestly saying that libraries don’t help your interest in a
12 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
subject, or an author, and cause purchases?
“by distributing his words and thoughts to a wide audience for nothing
the effect is the same as a large scale breach of copyright.
I don’t think you understand what copyright is.
Copyright is infact designed to be good for society through a balance of

public and private rights. It’s no accident that libraries all around the
world are encouraged to do this - it’s by design. The public see good in
this.
The public aren’t thieves, and demonizing them for using a legitimate,
legal and cherished public resource won’t achieve anything other than
eroding public respect for authors.
The thing about copyright is that those who argue for ‘only private rights’
or ‘only public rights’ are anti-social extremists; they don’t seek to benefit
society.
Actual copyright is a balance, and again I suggest that you find that.
20.
Sean September 24th, 2009 at 11:14
‘Your position seems to be that it’s the author’s duty to subsidise those
who can’t afford to buy his/her books.’
Well, only in that if the author writes a piece because they want the
information they have gathered, and the ideas they have formed, in the
public domain, they have to be careful about restricting access.
If you wanted, it would be possible for you to create a purely digital work.
An electronic copy could be deposited with the National Library of New
Zealand, and restricted for viewing only within that building. The rest of
the public would have to pay to get through your pay-wall to view this
content. However, your circulation would drop and your information and
ideas would reach only a fraction of those who could benefit from it.
If you wrote the piece because you felt you have something to say, if you
went with paywalls, wouldn’t you defeat your own aim?
If you want to campaign that the New Zealand Authors’ Fund increases its
funding for authors, that could be a goer. However, from my limited
13 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
understanding of the political environment, you would need some luck

there.
Additionally, as a side topic, when I purchase a book, CD, or DVD, I

consider it my property to lend, to share the joy. In fact, as a number of
my friends now exchange television series on DVD, and along with what is
available at the public library, it has been nearly two years since my wife
and I have had to watch commercial television. It’s not that we watch
significantly less telly, we just now watch only good series, without ad
breaks, when it suits us.
If you think that book authorship is not producing appropriate revenue -

spare a thought for commercial television, and the funding through
advertising model, which I contend is now broken.
21.
Greg September 24th, 2009 at 11:23
So whats the ration of book buying compared to countries without a

‘public library institution?
Not withstanding NZ has one of the highest ‘corner bookstores’ per
captia. Public libraries purchases increase participation of books into
society.
22.
Debs September 24th, 2009 at 11:30
I’m hoping this posting of yours is slightly tongue and cheek on your part.
I have two things to say about Public Libraries:
1) they bought your book (you made $1021 out of public libraries there
BE)
2) they bought your book
23.
Tom Ackroyd September 24th, 2009 at 11:30
14 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Did it occur to you that publishers take into account those readers who
don’t buy a copy of a book when setting its retail price? Academic book
publishers would be especially aware of this; they price their books very
high to compensate for a large and lucrative second-hand market.
24.
flappy jandals September 24th, 2009 at 11:45
If I turn on the radio or the TV or even read a blog and hear or see or
read Brian Edwards being interviewed, does that not also constitute theft?
Are you not technically being deprived of your pay-per-view fee?
Presumably your alternative would be to visit each household in the
country to deliver your thoughts? Good luck with that. You may find your
speaker’s fees are less attractive than the royalties you’ve already
received. But you might find the missing .6 of the book.
25.
Did it occur to you that publishers take into account those readers who
don’t buy a copy of a book when setting its retail price?
Sorry Tom, the logic in that has got me beaten.
As for the second-hand market, while it’s nice to know your book has a
second life, there’s no financial return in it for the author.
26.
Jackie Howell September 24th, 2009 at 11:49
Oh Brian - gasp - you - you non-educator, you!
Public libraries change lives. Individual books don’t - The Women’s Room
notwithstanding. Libraries are funded by rates or subscription, therefore
everyone pays anyway for what they read there. Which means that more
books can be bought. So that more lives can be changed.
As a former public librarian, I could encourage you to write either

popular romance or a nice cosy mystery - they always go well - whereas
15 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
the political bio’s figure in the lending stats down somewhere around
those of the large-print bible, right before they hit the 20 cent sale table.
I am also certain that six months’ worth of hard slog on a Mills & Boon
would elevate your financial status considerably. Tip: The M & B “Sexy”
series is a sure-fire winner.
27.
I’m hoping this posting of yours is slightly tongue and cheek on your part.
Not tongue in cheek at all, Debs. And the fact that you, and probably
many others, think so is probably because the public library concept has
been around for so long and is so ingrained in our thinking, that the idea
that it might be a flawed concept seems crazy to most people.
28.
Pete Sime September 24th, 2009 at 11:52
This touches on a core legal and philosophical point that is not routinely
considered in the copyright debate. The idea that copyright is a natural
right. It isn’t. It is a right granted by Parliament. This was recognised
with the Statute of Anne in 1709, before which the public at large had the
unfettered right to copy what they wished.
In that light copyright can be seen as a restriction on a public right,

rather than an enforcement of a personal right(indeed, this is why the
framers of the US Constitution felt compelled to specifically grant
Congress the power to legislate on intellectual property). The policy
reasons behind it were to encourage the production of intellectual output
by granting a limited monopoly. The exemptions for libraries in the
Copyright Act are really a retention of the ancient public rights once held
by all. Can you honestly say you’ve never written a book because libraries
will stock it?
Further, publishers generally work well with libraries. I imagine this is

because libraries promote a culture of reading and more readers in
general result in more book sales overall.
16 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
29.
So whats the ration of book buying compared to countries without a

‘public library institution?
I have no idea about the ratio (I assume that’s what you meant to write),
Greg. Public library purchases undoubtedly increase reading of books in
society, but I very much doubt that they increase book sales in any
significant way.
30.
Patricia September 24th, 2009 at 12:07
If it wasn’t for public libraries some authors wouldn’t sell any books at all!
31.
Sean, I can’t believe that you and others are finding this concept so
difficult. It takes time and effort to write a book. Yes, the author wants
people to read what he’s written, and possibly to spread his ideas. But,
like anyone else, he wants to be paid for his work. He doesn’t want it
given away. Most New Zealand writers can barely survive on royalties
from their books. Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the only
people who borrow books from public libraries are beneficiaries and the
disabled, I’ll go on maintaining that those who can afford to pay should
pay. Not the retail price of the book. Not even the royalty that the author
would have got on a sale, but some reasonable sum that recognises that
the book is someone’s work and that ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’. I
can only assume that most of these comments come from people so stingy
that they are offended by the idea of handing over two or three dollars for
the pleasure and the information they get from reading a book. Sad.
32.
17 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
“but I very much doubt that they increase book sales in any significant
way”
As a child I was brought up so to speak in the public library. It was access

to the public library that sparked my love of books. This is why I buy
books on a regular basis. I suspect I am not alone in this.
I am sorry but public libraries are no more of a flawed concept than ‘free’
education, public service broadcasting or community education that this
government want to butcher. It is part of a civilised society. Charging for
books may not affect people like me, but it will have an impact on future
generations and in the long term authors will also suffer. You should be
fighting to keep something as precious as this, notwithstanding your role
as an author.
33.
Yvonne September 24th, 2009 at 12:21
If I want a book I’ll buy it. If a book is only marginally of interest I will
borrow it. At least the author has got his/her ideas across and I may be
better educated/informed/entertained because of it and am grateful to
authors for that. I’m in a position where I can buy books of interest (and
they’re NOT cheap!). Just because I use the library does not mean I don’t
buy books. You don’t seem to care at all that those who cannot afford to
buy books would be denied access to your thoughts, ideas and
information. Perhaps be thankful that many found your book interesting
enough to read and even buy? Was your motivation for writing a book
simply to make money? It seems rather mean-spirited and selfish of you.
34.
I don’t think you understand what copyright is.
You really are an arrogant bugger. Not only have I been involved in
publishing for more than 40 years, I have written and lectured on the
subject of copyright. I know what it is. And for all your high-minded
rationalisations, the principal function of copyright is to vest in the
originator of a work the sole right to reproduce (or perform) that work or
to authorise others to do so. I already agreed that what public libraries do
is not technically a breach of copyright. But the effect is the same as
18 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
reproduction. If the library photocopied the book and gave its members
the photocopies to read, there would be no waiting lists for library books.
It would be illegal but everyone who wanted to could read the book at the
same time and without payment. The only difference between that and
what actually happens, is that everyone who wants can read the book
without paying, but not at the same time. I guess you could call this
asyncronous reproduction.
35.
Amanda Cossham September 24th, 2009 at 12:30
Brian wrote: Should the musician, painter, sculptor, architect take the
same view? I can tell you, I’d love to own a Rita Angus or even a Dick
Frizell, but there’s no way I could afford to buy one.”
Not the same situation - painters and sculptors (and architects) create
one piece of work, which is then sold to whomsoever can afford it. If that
work is sold to a museum or art gallery we may all view that work. But
since the creator couldn’t have sold it more than once anyway, we all
benefit by being able to view that work. Such works may be photographed
and made ‘available’ in books - does the artist then get a royalty on the
photograph of their work? Doubt it. That goes to the owner, not the
creator.
If you wish to publish only one copy of your work, to set a price on that
copy that reflects what you think it is worth, and attempt to sell that to
one person, good for you - like to see the attempt.
Or perhaps tell your publisher you no longer want to allow libraries to

purchase your book. That won’t stop the individual purchasers lending to
friends - who may or may not purchase their own copy.
I’m all for authors receiving an appropriate recompense for writing. I

don’t think they should subsidise anyone. But most of those who read
library copies would not have purchased that book in the first place. I do
not believe libraries leave anyone any the worse off.
Your argument is specifically directed at public libraries. Do you not

consider academic, special, school or national libraries to be in the same
position?
36.
19 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Tom Ackroyd September 24th, 2009 at 12:34
Let me explain my “logic”.
In an economic landscape that includes widespread public lending,

publishers might set a higher retail price for their books than one
without, to compensate for loss of revenue.
In other words, if you want to read a book and have to pay for it, the retail
price could be set lower because more books would be sold. An author’s
percentage-per-unit royalties would arguably remain constant.
37.
Don Christie September 24th, 2009 at 12:43
Well, of course I agree that the individual buyer of a book is fully entitled
to lend it to anyone they want.
Sorry, if you agree with that proposition why did you say, in your original
post
But there’s a principle here: when one person buys a book and lends it to
another person to read, they effectively become an accessory to theft.
Do you now regret and rescind such inflammatory language?
Seems to me you are arguing for a stupid society which is hardly one that
will continue to support writers in any meaningful way. $40k for 6 months
work not enough? By whose measure?
38.
Mark Harris September 24th, 2009 at 12:43
“I can only assume that most of these comments come from people so
stingy that they are offended by the idea of handing over two or three
dollars for the pleasure and the information they get from reading a book”
http://www.exislepublishing.com/shop/product/item12911/helen-by-brian-
edwards.html
http://www.amazon.com/Helen-Portrait-Minister-Brian-Edwards
/dp/0908988206
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Nonfiction/Business-Finance-Law/Law
20 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
/auction-236808535.htm
Even on Trademe, it’s quite a lot more than “two or three dollars”.
It’s very sad that you aren’t able to think your way through this. You
argument has no logic, no factual examples, no numbers and no
substance. However, I would hope that Auckland librarians are pleased
that you never use their facilities, given your fallacious beliefs around
copyright.
For me, not only will I not purchase one of your books, I shall not bother
to even read one - not out of spite, you understand, but because you’ve
shown such a singular misunderstanding of how things work as to make
your writings valueless.
39.
Jim September 24th, 2009 at 12:44
mmmm that’s the deal Brian. You get the state’s protection for your works,
and you have to pay the piper…
40.
Rita Hunt September 24th, 2009 at 12:45
I think you were lucky every library bought a copy. It would hardly have
been hot reading for every household in New Zealand. ‘In the olden days’
people wrote books to spread knowledge.
The main point of public libraries is that nobody in the whole world can
have all the books even if one wanted to pay for them. At least this way
the content of the books can spread. And for me personally it has very
often resulted in purchasing the actual book AFTER reading the library
copy. So don’t feel too hard done buy. ;)
41.
Rob September 24th, 2009 at 12:46
Brian, I hope that in the writing of the biography you made sure that you
did not use any libraries or indeed any books that you did not own.
21 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Libraries have been around since before the publishing industry and
indeed the idea of copyright was born, so that is the more recent idea.
I also suspect that if a book could only be read by the person who bought
it, you would not really have more sales of your biography - though Dan
Brown may be happier.
42.
Belladonnna September 24th, 2009 at 12:48
there’s no way I could afford to buy one.
Well, no, most of us can’t afford to buy significant artworks — but we can
go along to the public art galleries and see them. And just how does this
differ from libraries?
43.
I can only assume that most of these comments come from people so stingy
that they are offended by the idea of handing over two or three dollars for
the pleasure and the information they get from reading a book. Sad.
Or, they are from people who recognise the value that libraries have in
giving our society access to knowledge. And you as a contributor of that
knowledge benefits from having a society that when it walks into a
bookshop *does* place a value on knowledge.
Frankly, I am surprised that a former advisor to a Labour PM is even

arguing this “user pays” position. Talk about bizarre.
44.
Joe September 24th, 2009 at 12:50
I guess you could call this asyncronous reproduction.
No you can’t. There is no reproduction when you lend a book.
22 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
45.
Tim September 24th, 2009 at 12:51
Not only have I been involved in publishing for more than 40 years, I have
written and lectured on the subject of copyright. I know what it is. And
for all your high-minded rationalisations, the principal function of
copyright is to vest in the originator of a work the sole right to reproduce
(or perform) that work or to authorise others to do so.
So why is this comment copyright Brian Edwards Media 2009?
46.
Chris Knight September 24th, 2009 at 12:52
You would not be nearly so well known if only people who liked your work
enough to pay for it- read it.
47.
“I can’t believe that you and others are finding this concept so difficult.”
I don’t believe that anyone misunderstands your concept. There is

however strong disagreement with your copyright maximalist position.
In this NYTimes piece http://bit.ly/FqRt they set out 3 points in favour of

libraries and how they’re beneficial to authors.
“1. Libraries help train young people to be readers; when those readers
are older, they buy books.
2. Libraries expose readers to works by authors they wouldn’t have
otherwise read; readers may then buy other works by the same author, or
even the same book to have in their collection.
3. Libraries help foster a general culture of reading; without it, there
would be less discussion, criticism, and coverage of books in general,
which would result in fewer book sales.”
As for arrogance, I’m sure it’s quite obvious who’s optimistically hoping
the public would have actually bought their work.
23 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
48.
Claire September 24th, 2009 at 13:02
Great thoughts Brian! So does this mean Te Papa and all the art galleries
are thieves as well? Been to plenty of exhibitions that I’ll never buy from
the artist but I did get to see. And my parents, started me young on the
path of crime! I thought they were introducing me to the wonderful world
of books, when in fact they were stealing from the author whenever they
borrowed books from the library. No telling where I’d be without those
children’s library books we couldn’t possibly afford, probably illiterate
and not buying books but definitiely not a thief…
49.
there’s no way I could afford to buy one.”
I know of at least one NZ public library that has in its history loaned
original pieces of art, prints and posters.
50.
Timothy Greig September 24th, 2009 at 13:16
Do Rita Angus or Dick Frizell complain that their work is up on display at

Te Papa? I don’t even have to pay them a cent to enjoy what they’ve made,
but I guess Te Papa spends quite a bit to acquire them on my behalf.
I’m perfectly happy not to own their art, but I am a fan of other people,
whose work I’ve gone to some lengths to acquire.
In a similar way, I hardly ever buy books, but when I see there’s any kind
of new Terry Pratchett material, I’m at the bookstore on release day.
I think, perhaps increasingly due to those sneaky ‘long tail’ economies,

content creators everywhere need to look to their fan communities to
make their money - perhaps there are new ways you can make money
instead making ‘everyone’ pay?
24 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Rather than trying to limit the number of people who access your material
without paying, you could be trying to increase this number. You could be
hoping that, if you work is really good, you’ll build a following of people
who’ll want to get hold of your next book, or who’ll ask you to come speak
at their next event, or who’ll want to buy the glossy hardback to put in
their bookshelf. You could be asking yourself what kind of extra value you
can add to your work to build some community, loyalty, and discussion
around your writing.
It seems to me (though I am so very biased) that libraries are really just

increasing your potential fan base and reading community.
(It would be interesting to see research on how library use might

contribute to later sales. I know I personally started reading Terry
Pratchett at the library as a kid, just getting his books out on a whim, but
then became a fan and started buying them once I had disposable income
of my own.)
51.
Alice September 24th, 2009 at 13:20
I think there is a very simple solution here - since Brian is very obviously
upset by public libraries “theft” of his work and theoretical loss of
$11,677 per annum perhaps all public libraries could simply agree not to
buy his books. Any customers who enquire about the lack of his titles
could be told of his feelings on the matter and be directed to Whitcoulls.
52.
Justin September 24th, 2009 at 13:28
I agree with you Brian. It is an issue that libraries need to address. The
very worst outcome is for libraries to ignore the problem and find
themsleves without access to book at all. A blalnced royalty system seems
the fairest option for all.
Good luck and keep writing.
Justin.
53.
25 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Do Rita Angus or Dick Frizell complain that their work is up on display at

Te Papa? I don’t even have to pay them a cent to enjoy what they’ve made,
but I guess Te Papa spends quite a bit to acquire them on my behalf.
Most of this seems reasonable, Timothy. Two points, however.
When an artist sells a painting, it seems to me that he/she transfers

ownership of that painting entirely to the purchaser, who may do with the
painting what they think fit - show it to lots of other people, exhibit it,
lend it to others to exhibit, re-sell it, hide it in the basement, destroy it.
The price of the painting reflects this. This one sale will or hopefully
should reimburse the painter for his work. The author requires volume
sales to survive.
As to whether reading a library book encourges the reader to buy copies

of the author’s other work, I think it’s much more likely that that
library-user will look for the author’s other books in the library. I went
through a Thomas Keneally phase some years ago and read virtually
everything he’d written. Got them all delivered by the Auckland Central
Library to the Leys Institute in Ponsonby. Wonderful. Cost me a dollar
though. Shocking!
54.
Forgot to add: what you really should be “pissed off ” about, is how Dan
Brown makes “zillions” from selling pap. His storytelling is
mind-numbingly vapid and his written English is just junk.That’s what
should stick in your craw. Not the libraries or those who go there and
borrow books.
55.
Tim Darlington September 24th, 2009 at 13:40
I hear taxation is also theft. Property, too…
A couple of points:
1. I borrow hundreds of books from the public library every year but buy
26 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
less than a dozen. Should the public library cease to exist, I’d expect to
continue buying less than a dozen, but also to read a lot less and to
borrow more books from my friends and family. Net gain to authors:
approx $0.00.
2. Your suggested methods of linking fees paid to authors to the number of

times their books are issued (direct or indirect) would involve significant
admin overheads in identifying the amounts to be paid and who to pay
them to. Presumably it’s this, rather than NZ’s socialist heritage, that
explains the flat fee used by the Authors’ Fund. You’d find a significant
portion of your fee went into those overheads if it were tried.
56.
Timothy Greig September 24th, 2009 at 13:44
You’re such a quick responder, Brian, thanks!
Of course, because I am a little bit impatient with my entertainment, I

must read Terry’s work as soon as it comes out - not a moment later - and I
imagine for people who follow topics like politics, this drive is there as
well. You probably want to be up to date with your favourite commentator.
I usually find my local libraries can’t cope with that kind of demand as
purchasing through their bulk suppliers takes time.
Of course, I like owning my favourite things too. Nowadays, because I

have a grown-up job, I like to purchase favourite video games and movies
(as opposed to renting them) so I can show off when people come around
that I have the very coolest, most well designed, titles in my collection.
I’ve even bought retro ones several times over, to get various special
editions!
But… I do have one extra question for you:

When you wrote your book on Helen Clark, did you just use resources
from your own personal purchased collection of books and journals, or did
you borrow material from the library in creating it?
You’ve considered the 6 month time cost of creating the book, but what
about the additional cost to you in purchasing all those books you used as
references?
57.
27 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
I know of at least one NZ public library that has in its history loaned
original pieces of art, prints and posters.
Which it’s absolutely entitled to do if it owns those pieces or if the person

who made them agrees. See my reply to Timothy Greig.
58.
Great thoughts Brian! So does this mean Te Papa and all the art galleries
are thieves as well?
See my reply to Timothy Greig on that.
And there’s a significant phrase in your comment - “books we couldn’t

possibly afford”. Now what about people who can afford, not to buy the
book, but to contribute part of the royalty the author would have received
if the book had in fact been sold? Re-read the piece and you’ll see that
that is all I have proposed.
59.
Maybe you should do a google search on banned books Brian and see who
saved them.
60.
No you can’t. There is no reproduction when you lend a book.
Glad you passed Literalism 101, Joe.
61.
28 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
You would not be nearly so well known if only people who liked your work
enough to pay for it- read it.
it isn’t about being ‘well known’, Chris. It’s about being paid for your
work.
62.
So why is this comment copyright Brian Edwards Media 2009?
Now that is interesting. Until your comment arrived, I hadn’t even

noticed that it says that at the bottom of the home page. My assumption is
that the site name and design are copyright and quite possibly my posts. I
very much doubt that readers’ comments could be included under that
copyright. I shall ask my friends Paul Reynolds and Helen Smith, who
designed the site, and you can bask in the warm glow of having
discovered there was something about internet copyright I didn’t know.
63.
Steven Heath September 24th, 2009 at 14:13
Brian,
Thought provoking piece.
Based on reading this I gather you never go to a library to participate in

this stated act of theft. Even to process the secret membership symbol
would be an issue, the infamous library card!
64.
Or, they are from people who recognise the value that libraries have in
giving our society access to knowledge. And you as a contributor of that
knowledge benefits from having a society that when it walks into a
bookshop *does* place a value on knowledge.
Just where in my post did I deny any of that?
29 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Frankly, I am surprised that a former advisor to a Labour PM is even

arguing this “user pays” position. Talk about out bizarre.
And now you want to shoe-horn me into a left-wing mindset. Anyway, my

understanding has always been that it is a fundamental Labour Party
tenet that people should be paid for their work.
65.
Well, no, most of us can’t afford to buy significant artworks — but we can
go along to the public art galleries and see them. And just how does this
differ from libraries?
See my reply to Timothy Greig.
66.
Brian, I hope that in the writing of the biography you made sure that you
did not use any libraries or indeed any books that you did not own.
No author’s or photographer’s copyright was infringed in the book.
67.
Jared Neilsen September 24th, 2009 at 14:19
I fail to comprehend the crux of your argument Brian.
Why do you write? To share your thoughts, educate others, influence

society?
Or to make money?
If it’s the latter, then thank you for being honest in regards to your
intentions and ensuring I do not make the mistake of purchasing any of
your works.
To illustrate the fallacy in your argument:

I was raised in a working class neighbourhood where much of my
30 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
entertainment came from reading. We weren’t rich enough to have a

private library (though if my parents made 40k every 6 months, perhaps
we could’ve) so I learnt via our public libaries.
These days, I use libraries to get a taste of an authors style and work -
much the same as when a friend lends (sorry, steals) a book to me, and as
I am a collector of great writing, I will often buy back catalogues of works
to share (sorry, steal) with friends to raise their awareness of these
literary greats.
Sadly your greed may be clouding your judgement on this one Brian.
With respect,
Jared
68.
I think you were lucky every library bought a copy. It would hardly have
been hot reading for every household in New Zealand. ‘In the olden days’
people wrote books to spread knowledge.
People still write books to spread knowledge. But a greater number are
story-tellers whether in fiction or non-fiction. This whole debate is about
one very simple question: should libraries or local bodies or the
government ensure that authors are reasonably remunerated for the
distribution of their words and ideas by public libraries to thousands of
readers? At present they are not reasonably remunerated.
69.
It’s very sad that you aren’t able to think your way through this. You
argument has no logic, no factual examples, no numbers and no
substance. However, I would hope that Auckland librarians are pleased
that you never use their facilities, given your fallacious beliefs around
copyright.
For me, not only will I not purchase one of your books, I shall not bother
to even read one - not out of spite, you understand, but because you’ve
shown such a singular misunderstanding of how things work as to make
31 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
your writings valueless.
I was reluctant to approve you comment for others to read, Mark. It

seemed such a cruel thing to do. But bugger it. If you write like a
petualant three-year-old, you deserve what you get.
70.
Don Christie. I don’t rescind it. It was a device to lead me into the wider
argument. As it happens, a close friend lent my recent memoir to a well-off
neighbour to read. That was both gratifying (the close friend loved the
book) and bloody annoying. Why not tell the well-off neighbour how much
you enjoyed reading the book and at least get the author his miserable $4
royalty.
$40k for 6 months work not enough? By whose measure? I won’t dignify
this with an answer.
71.
If I want a book I’ll buy it. If a book is only marginally of interest I will
borrow it. At least the author has got his/her ideas across and I may be
better
Ok, this is a reasonably comment. But if you read through this avalanche
of comment and reply, you’ll see that I accept that people should not be
denied access to books because they can’t afford them. But nor can
authors afford to give their work away, least of all in a small country like
New Zealand. So subsidising reading has to be the responsibility of the
councils who normally run the libraries or the government. If my motive
was to make money, I wouldn’t write any books. I always lose out on the
deal, because I can earn twice as much as a media consultant and have to
neglect that work while I’m writing.
72.
32 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
I don’t think anyone objects to the idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s
work and that the Public Lending Right could undergo some review (I
imagine you can try to lobby through the NZSOA), but I’m sure you
understand there is a limit to the life of a book. They are published and
there’s a flurry of marketing. They may hit the bestseller lists. But after a
period of time they lose popularity, are remaindered at drastically reduced
prices (I don’t know what the royalty situation is there) - or worse, pulped
- and eventually they go out of print.
When a book loses popularity, a library is forced to consider whether to

keep it on the shelf at all. There’s only a finite amount of shelving space
and new books coming in all the time and if people aren’t issuing copies
as much as they once did, the need to retain them is reassessed.
Perhaps this can be overcome by installing prit-on-demand machines in

libraries which would constitute a sale, rather than a rental and reduces
the production costs.
Further, as this only applies to New Zealand content, libraries may be

compelled to further reorient itself to non-NZ material, meaning much less
exposure to N.Z. culture.
73.
Guy September 24th, 2009 at 14:52
I think the point you make about the relentlessly egalitarian nature of the
public library royalty for authors is fair.
This country’s miserable attitude to artists of all hues does not reflect well
on us. I think a publically funded system based on the number of times an
item is borrowed from libraries would be fair and, what’s more, may well
end up encouraging the more gifted writers among us to be even more
productive and creative.
It could, of course, also encourage the production of ‘lowest common

denominator’ stuff. Oh dear, why is life so complicated and unfair?!
74.
I don’t think anyone objects to the idea of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s
33 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
work and that the Public Lending Right could undergo some review
Thanks Pete for a restrained and helpful comment.
75. Brian Edwards: libraries accerssory to theft :: StopPress :: Breaking news

from New Zealand Marketing magazine September 24th, 2009 at 14:56
[...] of the leftie litterati, Brian Edwards, has launched a surprising attack
on that near-scared liberal institution, the public library. What pisses me
off as an author is that [...]
76.
I fail to comprehend the crux of your argument Brian. Why do you write?
To share your thoughts, educate others, influence society? Or to make
money?
Every time I write a book I lose money, Jared, because I can earn twice as
much using that time to pursue my profession as a media consultant. Your
view seems to be that authors should starve in garrets. My view is that,
like everyone else, they should be reasonably rewarded for their work. At
present they aren’t.
If we’re going to trade childhoods, I was raised by a solo mother in a

council housing estate. So get off your working class bike.
And by the way, your individual expereince is just that, not a template for
how the thousands of other library users behave. It doesn’t “illustrate the
fallacy” of anything.
77.
Thought provoking piece. Based on reading this I gather you never go to

a library to participate in this stated act of theft. Even to process the
secret membership symbol would be an issue, the infamous library card!
I only go to one library, the Leys Institute, where the Auckland library has
sent the books I’ve ordered. It’s a wonderful service. I reckon I’m getting
back just a small part of the royalties, library readers of my books owe me.
34 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
78.
Colin Jackson September 24th, 2009 at 15:09
“As to whether reading a library book encourges the reader to buy copies
library-user will look for the author’s other books in the library.”
[citation needed]
I reckon you’re just plain wrong about this. Many years ago, as an early
teenager (with no independant income I might add), I stumbled across a
book by Robert Heinlein in my library. I was instantly hooked, and over
the next few years spent every penny I could scrape together buying
Heinleins. At first I bought the ones I couldn’t get in the library, and
borrowed in parralel. When I’d finished that, I bought the ones I’d already
borrowed. He was still alive then and writing new books as well. Then I
moved onto other science fiction authors…
Fast forward 30 years, and now I have walls of books, all carefully packed
and shipped over from England when I moved here. I’m talking about
thousands of books, a life-times collection. Not only did that initial
‘borrow’ more than pay back the author in subsequent sales, but it also
paid back countless other authors, most of whom I’d never heard of at the
time I stopped borrowing from libraries.
I don’t consider I owe Heinlein a cent for that borrowed book long ago -
he and I are all square.
The way for an author to profit from libraries is to be a good author, and
to inspire the borrowers to read not only your other works, but works by
other authors in the same genre. Their work benfits you in the same spirit.
Your position is niggardly and short-sited, and frankly I’m somewhat

flabbergasted to read somebody who claims to have socialist credentials
taking such a view.
79.
Maybe you should do a google search on banned books Brian and see who
saved them.
35 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Maybe I should, Greg. But nowhere have I said that public libraries are
evil or don’t do marvellous work. They aren’t and they do. I love libraries.
BUT I DON’T WANT THEM TO GIVE MY WORK AWAY! Clear? The
question is for you and the rest of the library supporter tag team.
80.
Jonathan Hunt September 24th, 2009 at 15:13
You say: “dozens of other bludgers get to read it for nothing,” but later “I
get paid $602.34 to compensate me”. So it’s not “nothing” is it?
“Their generous act amounts to little more than stealing the author’s
work,” and later “I agree that the individual buyer of a book is fully
entitled to lend it to anyone they want.” Which is it, Brian?
In the case of lending a book, nothing has been stolen, unless the book is
not returned by the borrower. That you feel you may have been deprived
of income, does not equate to theft.
You might have a valid argument that compensation via the Authors’ Fund
payments are insufficient. (I would have thought that the minimal royalty
passed on by publishers would be a more attractive target.) However, the
inflammatory elision of lending with theft has, in my opinion, undermined
your case.
Presumably your next e-book will be laden with DRM so you can impose
your own policies with respect to lending and copying. Let’s see how that
works for you, shall we?
81.
I reckon you’re just plain wrong about this. Many years ago, as an early
teenager (with no independant income I might add), I stumbled across a
book by Robert Heinlein in my library. I was instantly hooked, and over
the next few years spent every penny I could scrape together buying
Heinleins. At first I bought the ones I couldn’t get in the library, and
borrowed in parralel. When I’d finished that, I bought the ones I’d already
borrowed. He was still alive then and writing new books as well. Then I
moved onto other science fiction authors…
36 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Someone else who thinks that his personal experience defines reality. And
this has bugger all to do with my non-existent “socialist credentials”.
82.
Tim Jones September 24th, 2009 at 15:16
I don’t want public libraries to stop lending books, or charge fees for
lending, but I do agree that Author’s Fund payments should have a
component for the number of times a book is lent as well as the number of
copies held, provided the admin overhead doesn’t eat up too much of the
return to authors.
I’d also like to see the Author’s Fund aggregate the total number of books
by an author held in NZ libraries. At present, authors are only
compensated for books of which over 50 copies are held in NZ libraries. If
you have ten books, each of which are held 49 times in New Zealand
libraries according to the sampling methodology, you’re out of luck -
which is tough on poets, for example.
83.
I think the point you make about the relentlessly egalitarian nature of the
public library royalty for authors is fair.
Thank you, Guy, you just about restored my dented faith in the
reasonableness of library users.
84.
Jonathan Hunt September 24th, 2009 at 15:17
BTW, I notice this blog is running Wordpress. Have you made a donation
(http://wordpress.org/donate/)? Are the creators of the software you use
worthy of their hire?
85.
37 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Sorry Brian, but i dont see it as giving your work away, but as opening up
a whole new audiance who wouldn’t even bother to read something about
Helen. Maybe you should see it as a means of saving a few trees, libraries
rarely dump books. Also they havn’t stopped J.K Rowling from making
squillions. Maybe you need a more appealing character to write about.
86.
“Every time I write a book I lose money”
So it’s an educated decision, therefore there is some element of altruism

in your choice to write books.
“If we’re going to trade childhoods, I was raised by a solo mother in a

council housing estate. So get off your working class bike.”
It’s hard to understand ones perspective without context Brian - that’s all
I was offering. No self pity (nor congratulations) here.
“And by the way, your individual expereince is just that, not a template for
how the thousands of other library users behave. It doesn’t “illustrate the
fallacy” of anything.”
Fair point, and ‘Illustrate the fallacy’ was a poor choice of words… but
what is the template as to how other library users behave?
I think it’s a high horse you are preaching from here and the economic
imbalance you complain about is derived from the significant concessions
you made to your publisher by accepting 10% of the proceeds via the
sales of your work.
Libraries and their users aren’t the real thieves here - your publisher is.
Don’t turn on your consumers!
87.
Alice September 24th, 2009 at 15:30
Of 8 borrowable copies of this book at my public library (and 1 reference

copy) only 3 are currently on loan…
38 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
88.
Dave Lane September 24th, 2009 at 15:33
Brian,
I’m wondering if, in your research for your books, whether you went to
the library to consult references, e.g. newspapers, histories, etc.
Would you suggest that reference tomes or large historical newspaper

collections, which individuals would almost certainly never buy, should
not be available in libraries?
To me, your argument, as Matthew Holloway said quite eloquently, is

confused due to the use of the word “theft” and a certain amount of sour
grapes from you side.
I would submit that ideas can’t be stolen, only shared (unless someone
conks you on the head after you’ve explained one to them, causing
amnesia). A *printed* book is a physical good that can be stolen, but
that’s a theft from its owner, not the author.
89.
Apologies, I’ve just spotted a previous comment that indicates that yes
you do go to the library… Hmm, sounds a bit like selective ethics to me…
90.
You seem to be taking on all comes today Brian. Full points for effort.
“Sean, I can’t believe that you and others are finding this concept so
difficult. It takes time and effort to write a book. Yes, the author wants
people to read what he’s written, and possibly to spread his ideas. But,
like anyone else, he wants to be paid for his work. He doesn’t want it
given away.”
Yes, I do get that. If you remember my last post I did suggest that
39 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
improving the funding from the New Zealand Authors’ Fund could make a
difference, but that was unlikely to be possible in the present political
climate.
I just don’t like the idea of lumping the cost directly onto the reader. For
one, I see library’s as democratic public spaces, where information can be
found by any one who walks through the door. Also, as a family man, the
public library is one of the few places my family can go every weekend for
free and come away with stuff worth having. A cost of $10-$20 dollars a
week would seriously inhibit us from going to the library.
I do accept that a worker is worth his hire, but if you want to campaign on
this issue remember you are working in a well supplied market. That does
lower return.
As an aside, Jackie Howell’s Mills and Boon idea isn’t so bad. A couple
people I know proved all you needed to turn one of those out was two
good friends, a weekend, and a solid supply of red wine.
91.
Apologies, I’ve just spotted a previous comment that indicates that yes
you do go to the library… Hmm, sounds a bit like selective ethics to me…
Not at all. If there were a charge for borrowing a book from the public
library, I’d happily pay it.
92.
Just where in my post did I deny any of that?
Well now you are using that same ‘debating’ tactics as that other best
selling author of Helen Clark biographies.
Hmm.
Also;
You have equated lending books to theft.
40 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
You have called for libraries to charge for lending.
You seem surprised folks have shown up to disagree.
93.
I’m wondering if, in your research for your books, whether you went to
the library to consult references, e.g. newspapers, histories, etc.
Of course ideas can be stolen. Why do you think we have patent laws? Or
for that matter, why do you think we have copyright laws?
Authors are entitled to receive payment for their work. This is normally in
the form of royalties. No royalties are paid by libraries, councils or
government on the books which the libraries lend to tens of thousands of
people to read without charge. I’m proposing a small charge on borrowing
to compensate authors in quite a modest way for this loss of income.
94.
Of 8 borrowable copies of this book at my public library (and 1 reference

copy) only 3 are currently on loan…
I assume you’re referring to the Helen book. If 3 copies are on loan 8

years after publication, that’s pretty good. The question is, how many
people got to read the book over those 8 years without the author
receiving any royalty?
95.
So it’s an educated decision, therefore there is some element of altruism

in your choice to write books.
Well, that’s all pretty reasonable, Jared. But to get a higher royalty from a
publisher, you must previously have had huge publishing success.
Anyway, this isn’t an either/or issue. Authors should get a higher
41 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
percentage from publishers and authors should receive reasonable

compensation for their books being lent to thousands of people to read.
96.
BTW, I notice this blog is running Wordpress. Have you made a donation
(http://wordpress.org/donate/)? Are the creators of the software you use
worthy of their hire?
No I haven’t. Yes they are. Wordpress was installed by the site designers
who were of course paid. If there is a fee I will happily pay it. And I will
also explore the donate site, about which I know absolutely nothing.
97.
I don’t want public libraries to stop lending books, or charge fees for
lending, but I do agree that Author’s Fund payments should have a
component for the number of times a book is lent as well as the number of
copies held, provided the admin overhead doesn’t eat up too much of the
return to authors.
Fair enough and agreed.
98.
“Of course ideas can be stolen. Why do you think we have patent laws? Or
for that matter, why do you think we have copyright laws?”
Copyright doesn’t cover ideas. The typical distinction is said that

copyright covers the expression, not the idea.
If you’d like to learn more about copyright Brian I can be hired as a

consultant.
Your first homework assignment would be these two articles,
42 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3375/features
/3163/tarzan_has_left_the_building.html
“[Copyright] protects the way the ideas are expressed, but it doesn’t
protect the ideas themselves. So the Listener could sue you for
photocopying this article and trying to sell the copy, but it can’t prevent
you writing about it in your own words.”
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090629/0317365399.shtml
Although this TechDirt article is about US law it has some interesting

distinctions between derivative and transformative works.
99.
” Authors should get a higher percentage from publishers and authors

should receive reasonable compensation for their books being lent to
thousands of people to read.”
Fair point Brian.
Libraries are one of the bastions of an advanced society - the educated

(often richer) populace collect and disseminate information to enable the
lowest of society a chance to get access to materials that will enlighten
and advance us as a collective.
I assume the major concern to many of us is councils/ governments may

simply close down some libraries to cover a cost of paying additional
forced royalties (or only stock overseas writers?).
How about libraries collect donations on behalf of authors, or a similar

model?
Many artists have used a similar “use then donate” model with varied
levels of success (ie: Radiohead, NIN, Danger Mouse & David Lynch) sure
you may not make as much $$ but I think the crux is we must defend free
access to information for everyone.
100.
43 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
The Ajthors’ Fund payment comes from the taxpayer and is a pitiful sum.
Have a look at some of my other replies to see where I was coming from on
the person to person lending.
“Bludgers” was a wholly inappropriate term, I agree. But on the general

issue of public library lending, I’ll stick with theft.
101.
“I’m proposing a small charge on borrowing to compensate authors in

quite a modest way for this loss of income.”
Oh was that it? I must have missed that in all the talk about library users
being thieving bludgers.
102.
But nowhere have I said that public libraries are evil or don’t do
marvellous work. They aren’t and they do. I love libraries.
So, why are you arguing to turn them into a glorified book store?
Oh boy. At this stage I will echo Matthew above, you *really* don’t
understand Patent and Copyright, do you?
103.
Oh was that it? I must have missed that in all the talk about library users
being thieving bludgers.
I think you must have missed most of it. Here’s what I said about the fee:
“As to what the fee should be, I’m not suggesting it should match the
author’s royalty. We don’t want to be greedy. But 25% of the royalty might
44 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
be reasonable and just enough to keep the wolf away from some future
Janet Frame’s door.” In the case of the Helen book, that would have been
$1.12.
I agree that “bludgers” was inappropriate, but I’m sticking with theft.
104.
Michael September 24th, 2009 at 16:50
It’s not theft. No one is stealing anything. The community, through their
rates and councils, have bought and paid for the books in their library.
Everyone in the community owns the books in the library, and can then
read their books. So no it’s not theft.
What your arguing is similar to saying a sports club would have to pay a
fee to use the balls they had already purchased everytime they played a
game or used them.
The point of the public library is that the community joins together to pool
their resources so as to enable everyone to have as much access to
resources as possible.
As to the author fund. It may be that at present levels the amount each
author gets is too low. And it may be that the revenue stream for the fund
could be looked at. But I doubt you would get any traction in this
economic climate. But then what you are proposing could be seen as
double-dipping. The community has alreay paid for the resource, why
should it pay again?
105.
00Bob September 24th, 2009 at 16:53
I stumbled over this via an NZ librarians e-list. This blog by whoever the
chap is is really quite funny. Free theft? Try free advertising. If you are an
author you really might want to acquaint yourself yourself with Baen and
their philosophy. Okay they do not avocate piracy, quite, but if a user
likes an item and it retails at a reasonable price they will buy it, if they
can. My own problem is my local bookstores don’t have most of my
favourite authors, e.g. Baen authors. Of course there aren’t any
Whitcoulls branchs over here either. Obviously they need to colonise this
poor uncivilised island over the ditch :)-
45 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
106.
It’s not theft. No one is stealing anything. The community, through their
rates and councils, have bought and paid for the books in their library.
Everyone in the community owns the books in the library, and can then
read their books. So no it’s not theft.
The library bought a few copies of the book and it owns those copies. In
lending those copies to hundreds of other people to read free of any
charge, it deprives the author of potential income.
107.
So, why are you arguing to turn them into a glorified book store?
Glorified book store? In a book store you would have paid $45 for the
Helen book, my example in the post. Here’s what I proposed in the post:
“As to what the fee should be, I’m not suggesting it should match the
author’s royalty. We don’t want to be greedy. But 25% of the royalty might
be reasonable and just enough to keep the wolf away from some future
Janet Frame’s door.” In this case the 25% would amount to $1.12.
108.
Brian, I think that the “potential” in “potential income” is a big stretch. I

would never have bought any of the books I stumble upon at the library.
Ever. Having read a book that I like, however, I will often seek out new
works by that author, occasionally purchasing them rather than
borrowing them. Had it not been for that first exposure at the Library, I
would never - I repeat *never* (not “potentially”) have purchased
anything from that author. The library sells books, once removed. It’s that
simple. Authors, especially obscure ones (like most of those from lil’ ole
NZ), can’t afford for libraries to change to a charge model.
46 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
109.
Out of interest what is the view of fellow authors on this topic?
I do not think authors should starve in garrets but I doubt for the average
author what they would wet from every library borrowing would keep the
wolf from the door. What it would do is add to the rewards of those like J K
Rowling (and good luck to her) who is not likely to be short of a bob or
two. It is a bit like the row over copyright expiry on recorded music after
50 years. Those making the loudest noise are the ones who least need the
dosh. Possibly I would change my view if I could be sure the money would
go to those authors most in need.
110.
Andrew September 24th, 2009 at 17:10
It seems to me Brian, that in order to be consistent in your views

regarding libraries you will, when negotiating the contract with a
publisher for any future book you might write, need to insist on a clause
which says that the publisher will not sell a single copy to a library, nor
permit any wholesaler or retailer to do so.
How you will get around the requirement for a legal deposit copy to be
provided to the National Library to faciliate ‘theft’ from there is another
matter.
111.
Paul Reynolds: This is fun! Can you have another go?
Sorry Paul. Missed this somehow. Leaving aside your nice idea that the
painting still belongs to Dick, the reality is that the buyer of an artwork
owns the artwork outright and can do with it what he/she wants. That is a
factor in the price and a painter of Dick’s stature is well rewarded.
Writers are different. They can’t live on the money from the sale of one
copy of their book. They have to sell thousands.
47 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
I agree that it’s a good thing that books remain in libraries for the reasons
you put forward. Writers normally make their living in the first year or two
of publication, unless they’re hugely famous or iconic. Later the cost to
the library, council or government of a borrowing fee would decline to
almost nothing.
112.
SH September 24th, 2009 at 17:14
How much did you lose and earn from “Daddy was a German spy and
other scandals”
113.
How much did you lose and earn from “Daddy was a German spy and
other scandals”
In financial terms I’d say I lost about 5 times what I earned. But I really
wrote that book for me.
114.
It seems to me Brian, that in order to be consistent in your views

regarding libraries you will, when negotiating the contract with a
publisher for any future book you might write, need to insist on a clause
which says that the publisher will not sell a single copy to a library, nor
permit any wholesaler or retailer to do so.
But I want my book to be in the library and I want people to read it. But I
think I’m entitled to some small recompense. And, if you’ll read the blog
carefully, you’ll see that, in the case of the Helen book, 25% of the royalty
comes to $1.12.
115.
48 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
The clarity of Michael’s argument has influenced my point of view.
So, I have to answer your point Brian.
“The library bought a few copies of the book and it owns those copies. In
lending those copies to hundreds of other people to read free of any
charge, it deprives the author of potential income.”
With an extention of Michael’s argument: it’s the community that has

brought those copies in the public library (through their rates), and it is
the community which reads them. So accepting a royalty charge onto a
member of the community to read these books would be like you accepting
a charge everytime you read a book on your own bookshelf. The
community has paid for them, and the community owns them.
You may want to try and charge a library more for your book, or argue for
an increase in the New Zealand Authors’ Fund. But charging the owners
for a book they already own?
116.
The clarity of Michael’s argument has influenced my point of view.
Sorry, Sean, this argument is pure sophistry. If the library bought two
books and the community owns the library, then the community owns
those two books. That’s all it owns.
117.
“Sorry, Sean, this argument is pure sophistry. If the library bought two
books and the community owns the library, then the community owns
those two books. That’s all it owns.”
Yes, and that is all the books the community uses. This isn’t a deceptive
argument, library’s aren’t an entity in themselves, they are a product of
community, used by community members.
Ah, it has been a long time since anything about me was called pure…
49 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
118.
Jez September 24th, 2009 at 18:14
I’m sorry Brian, but I found your article very disappointing. You are
promoting a user pays system for public libraries. What more could you do
to dissuade readers? To limit access to, and falter the free exchange of
knowledge and ideas?
If you wrote and bound your book yourself, the one copy. Would you sell it
to the highest bidder? Or have it sit in a library where people can read
and reflect on it for years to come?
What’s more important you to?
119.
Tony September 24th, 2009 at 18:29
This whole debate is about one very simple question: should libraries or
local bodies or the government ensure that authors are reasonably
remunerated for the distribution of their words and ideas by public
libraries to thousands of readers? At present they are not reasonably
remunerated.
Hmmm. On what philosophical basis do you claim that the government

protect your claimed copyright? Your intellectual property doesn’t exist as
a concrete object; it exists solely in the willingness by the courts to
uphold it.
Do you provide remuneration to the government as a fee for upholding

your copyright?
The US Constitution makes a clear statement on that - exclusive rights are

given to an artist for a limited time to promote the arts and sciences.
Libraries very obviously promote the arts and sciences. The question for
society as a whole, the basis for copyright, is not between your rights and
their ability to lend; the question is what rights granted to authors would
best promote the social good. We want you to write; we also want to be
able to access your writing.
Apart from your annoyance on the issue, can you show that the existence
50 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
of libraries materially impedes artistic production?
120.
Bill Howard September 24th, 2009 at 18:34
Here are some numbers.
Five copies of the book in question were purchased for lending, and one
for reference only, by a public library in New Plymouth and its branch
libraries. Since purchase, the books have been issued 172 times. This
figure includes reissues, so there are fewer individual readers.
So that’s about twenty people a year reading five copies, or four per book
per year.
121.
Alastair J September 24th, 2009 at 19:26
This argument about libraries has had me bemused all day. It seems
entirely redundant in the face of the issues around “copyright” presented
by the internet.
Before too long, libraries may well be like zoos for books, where
youngsters will be able to see these increasingly rare exotic objects.
As Juha mentioned above, surely Google Books is a greater threat to

authors’ profits than the neighbourhood library (if one is concerned at
all)?
Here, for example, another Brian Edwards has written a lengthy book
about libraries and great swathes of the thing are available online entirely
for free: http://is.gd/3CAZx
Many other books are available in their entirety.
122.
GG September 24th, 2009 at 19:42
“Should the musician, painter, sculptor, architect take the same view?”
For that we have the radio, art galleries and buildings in the street, all of
51 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
which we can enjoy for free. Should we have to pay to look at buildings?
Avert our eyes or face a $2 charge? Two glimpses for the price of one on
Mondays!? That would be absurd.
$40,000 is more than the average New Zealander earns in a year, and you
got this in just 6 months. I mean really it’s a win-win situation - you get
pretty decent money and the public gets free access to some important
knowledge on New Zealand’s history. And think of those who cannot afford
to shell out for your book. Are you suggesting that those impoverished
people should be denied access to all knowledge? Perhaps next we should
start charging kids at school to read text books. There is surely some
satisfaction from the knowledge that people in libraries across New
Zealand have the chance to enjoy and appreciate your work. Perhaps they
might even learn something.
Last but not least, I hope that you personally have paid extra royalties for
every work you’ve ever used as reference material in your own books. If
not, I’m sure you must own copies of all of them, every last one. I’m sure
you’ve never borrowed for free anything you used as reference material.
You certainly wouldn’t want to be the pot calling the kettle black!
123.
Rachel Goodchild September 24th, 2009 at 20:00
Actually I got your book to review. I am a little disappointed I haven’t yet

lent it out to many people.
I’m an author too- And one whose last book didn’t sell anywhere near your
volumes. (I am rather prolific with around 27 titles in the last seven years
so my book writing income still does add up)
I’m not too concerned about whether or not someone borrows it from the
library, or buys a copy for themselves. Because I have never seen the book
itself as the chief money maker. It’s what happens around the book that
makes the money.
I love it when people say they bought one of my books, but I love it almost
as much when someone says they simply read it. And loved it.
124.
Dylan Reeve September 24th, 2009 at 20:07
As to whether reading a library book encourges the reader to buy copies
52 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
library-user will look for the author’s other books in the library.
I’m certain that introduction to an author’s work by lending or a library

does result directly in news sales in at least some cases. Whether that
applies to you or not I don’t know, but I knew a number of people who
borrowed the first Harry Potter from the library only the then buy that
and the rest of the series. I’m fairly sure my wife’s large Stephen King
collection was probably germinated by a library, but the individual return
isn’t really the issue is it?
As others have said libraries promote reading in general. Without

libraries the overall level of book sales would surely be much lower,
especially these days with television and the internet to provide much
more immediate infotainment.
Should libraries pay a royalty on borrowing? I don’t really think so - firstly

it probably wouldn’t make any difference, and it would require a lot of
overhead and obviously require that a library charge for loans.
Then lets look at that - how much would they charge? What’s a reasonable
rental charge? 5% of retail? So let’s say $2.25 for your book Brian. How
much of that should you receive as a royalty? How about 20%? So now to
get the same $2.65 per copy, each would have to be borrowed six times.
In my imaginary world I think you’re better off with the flat-fee fund -
certainly after the first few years I doubt every copy of your book will be
checked out six-times a year - even less so if the people who check it out
have to pay a fee to do so.
I shall ask my friends Paul Reynolds and Helen Smith, who designed the
site, and you can bask in the warm glow of having discovered there was
something about internet copyright I didn’t know.
Well, without greater clarification (perhaps by hyperlink to a Copyright

page) the implication of that copyright statement is that all contents are
your protected property.
In reality you could never enforce that given that the contributors here
have not made any agreement to assign their rights to you.
125.
GiGi September 24th, 2009 at 21:03
53 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Every time I write a book I lose money, Jared, because I can earn twice as
much using that time to pursue my profession as a media consultant.
Hmm… but your lost time/money does result in a product that promotes
you/your views and allows you to be billed as “Author of ___” - two side
effects that increase your credibility, longevity and marketability in your
‘real job’.
Firstly, patents cover the practical application of ideas (you can’t patent
“the idea of building a flying car”) and secondly, patent protection only
gives the inventor 20 years exclusive use of their creation before it’s open
for competitors!
Builders, cleaners, nurses, doctors, teachers, librarians, & the vast

majority of the rest of the working world are not paid given ongoing
compensation for people accessing the fruits of their labour but they don’t
expect to be - some of them actually *like* the fact that they have
provided a product/service of lasting use (despite most of them making a
whole lot less than you)…
You could argue that we “sold” our work and therefore aren’t entitled to
any compensation, or that we perform “services” that (unlike your ideas)
don’t have ongoing value but (like the hordes apparently brainwashed
into a sense of entitlement by their long use of public libraries), that’s just
because the limited copyright concept has been around for so long and is
so ingrained in our thinking, that the idea that it might be a flawed
concept seems crazy to you).
The fact is that (just like authors) most people with successful careers
have original ideas - and they put a great deal of work into fine-tuning and
expressing them so that these ideas can be of ongoing use to their
colleagues and customers (as opposed to ‘potentially re-usable’)… we all
offer up more than we are paid for: from the teacher who innovates to
connect with kids, the doctor who brightens the ER, the cleaner who
thinks of a better toilet-cleaning motion, and so on and so forth…. and a
lot of what the uncopyrighted labourers provide is much more widely
reused and shared (without even crediting us!) but just because bulders
(no matter how original their hammering technique) ’sell’ their labour
(and the expression thereof), rather than charging for the product of their
labour on some sort of lease arrangement - does that make thier
contribution worth less then your book?
54 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Are doctors who save lives, and then don’t charge ‘extended use’ fees not
also underpaid for the priceless fruits of their labour?
Count yourself lucky that you *are* paid royalties and your work *does*
have protection - the principle behind the laws that give you these
“rights” could just as easily apply to the unacknowledged, unattributed,
freely-shared reproductions of other industries labourers.
…I had more & I’m sorry if I waffled off point but I’ve just finished 11
straight days work (at the public library!) and I’m tired so I will just leave
it there for now…
126.
David Friggens September 24th, 2009 at 22:04
“It takes time and effort to write a book. Yes, the author wants people to
read what he’s written, and possibly to spread his ideas. But, like anyone
else, he wants to be paid for his work. He doesn’t want it given away.”
Leaving aside the fact that it’s the 21st Century and women are allowed to
write books now, many people do write books and give them away free (as
well as selling them). People like Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig,
Shriram Krishnamurthi, David MacKay and New Zealander Keith
Newman.
In fact, one on this topic that you may like to read (for free, or by buying
it) is James Boyle’s The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the
Mind.
127.
James September 24th, 2009 at 23:32
@ Brian
What makes you think that a writer is any more special than a builder, or
anyone who creates something. once a house has been finished builders
receive nothing from anyone who rents it, or buys it from the original
owner.
To take your argument to its logical conclusion, should I pay dell a

commission if I sell my pc in a years time or should I pay a toilet tax to
55 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Tegal after I eat on of their chickens, because I will be giving it away to

the council very soon.
128.
Grant September 24th, 2009 at 23:52
It’s clear by the inordinate number of naysayers, regarding your

disquisition, that you’re on a hiding to nothing, Brian. Might be best to
retreat and recant. Not too late to salvage a bit of dignity while you can.
129.
Biff Abacon September 25th, 2009 at 00:14
Can we have Helen Clark’s opinion on this after all it’s her life and efforts
your prising a meagre living from?
PS I saw her opening schools and libraries in NZ during her tenure at the
helm!
130.
Little Toot September 25th, 2009 at 00:40
Hmmm… gotta feel for you Brian, it’s an ongoing problem for all artists
and writers trying to survive in this country … unless of course you’re
dead and everyone suddenly decides they want to ‘know you’.
If your 2729 notional borrowers had theoretically paid $1.12 per copy, my
calculator tells me you’d get the heady sum of $3056.48, and you’d still
be out of pocket by over $9000.
The Authors’ Fund is a very lean beast indeed, and the publishers cut is
pure dripping! What is their profit margin? After all, as far as marketting
is concerned, you and the subject (Helen) are the drawcard and it
shouldn’t need much promotion in NZ …
What about writing a revised up-to-date edition? As your ’subject’ now has
an international profile, it should be of far greater interest to the world
market.
Perhaps you could squeeze the publisher for an extra $4.40 per copy to
56 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
reimburse your losses to notional borrowers, and/or increase the cost of

purchase to libraries to reflect the lending?
Forgive my maths, it’s an ugly thing. I do think that the current Authors’
Fund might possibly be scrapped and a more equitable system put in
place, perhaps only for non-fiction books while somehow still enabling
borrowers the opportunity to read quality for free.
The more popular the book, the broader the potential returns to the
author.
Or am I in la-la land?
It would be a sad thing for the author who gets a cheque for $1.12 at the
end of a long year of waiting!
It’s a knotty problem that needs sorting.
Go well.
131.
It’s clear by the inordinate number of naysayers, regarding your

disquisition, that you’re on a hiding to nothing, Brian. Might be best to
retreat and recant. Not too late to salvage a bit of dignity while you can.
Yours is the last comment on this topic I’m going to reply to, Grant.
Retreating and recanting is not in my nature. I have, however,
acknowledged that the word “bludgers” was inappropriate and offensive
and have removed it from the post. That aside, the idea that the Authors’
Fund should calculate a return to authors based on the number of
borrowings rather than on the number of copies held in librariesis a valid
topic for debate.
132.
BE: “I have, however, acknowledged that the word “bludgers” was

inappropriate and offensive and have removed it from the post”.
Given that a goodly number of these responses were predicated on your

mindset that impelled you to refer to library borrowers as “bludgers”, it’s
not appropriate/fair that you now edit your post. My response can be
contextualised by your use of that particular epithet.
57 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
133.
I look forward to hearing you expand your arguments on National Radio in

the afternoon. When are you next appearing so i can make sure i listen? (I
realise you said you would not reply but just a date please so I do not miss
it?)
134. Andrew McMillan (karora) 's status on Thursday, 24-Sep-09 20:46:47 UTC
- Identi.ca September 25th, 2009 at 09:46
[...] http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/09/why-public-libraries-are-just-
a-form-of-theft/ a few seconds ago from Gwibber [...]
135.
River Howe September 25th, 2009 at 10:03
I can’t help but note a connection between your last post, Brian, and the
first words of Judy’s post - “Media Tip: You’ve got a point there!” of a few
days ago - “The first thing we tell our clients, from politicians to pop stars,
is: ‘Be straightforward, tell the truth - and admit your mistakes’.”
(http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/09/media-tip-youve-got-a-point-
there/)
136.
Sorted.
137.
“Yours is the last comment on this topic I’m going to reply to, Grant.
Retreating and recanting is not in my nature. I have, however,
acknowledged that the word “bludgers” was inappropriate and offensive
and have removed it from the post. That aside, the idea that the Authors’
Fund should calculate a return to authors based on the number of
58 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
borrowings rather than on the number of copies held in librariesis a valid

topic for debate.”
But you’re sticking with “thieves”? “bludgers” is at last a matter of

opinion, whereas “thief” is simply factually incorrect.
The value of your book is what society says it is. You can set whatever
‘price’ you like, but the value is out of your hands. If society says the
value of a book in a library is tuppence ‘appeny, then that’s it. You can
arue and cajole, but hurling around pejorative terms at your customers is
an exercise in futility.
If you’d simply written a thoughtful piece on the levels of compensation

for authors in the public library system, I’m pretty sure you’d have
received a ton of replies in support. All you’ve actually succeeded in
doing is proving how far out on a limb you are with this issue.
Petard…meet hoist.
“Retreating and recanting is not in my nature”, said the author, as he

tumbled over the abyss…
138.
University of Waikato Library September 25th, 2009 at 10:40
Hello Brian
I know your post is aimed at public libraries, but I used to have your
worthy tome within my sturdy walls. (Just how sturdy they are is evident
for all to see at the moment as they are being ripped apart! It’s a bit chilly
on the inside.)
I can tell you that your book was borrowed once in 2003, thrice in 2004,
four times in 2005, thrice in 2006, once in 2007, twice in 2008 and once
in 2009 whereupon it was lost by the patron.
Out of interest, this is the most popular of your tomes in my collection. Of

the 13 other tomes I have authored by you, one has been issued 4 times,
one 3 times, two 2 times, six 1 time, and three have had 0 issues.
Ka kite
139.
59 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Paul Reynolds September 25th, 2009 at 11:07
Some time way back in post number three, or thereabouts, I suggested

that the good Dr B might leave the librarians alone and concentrate his
considerable intellect on the economics of the current analogue value
chain whereby the author gets 10% of the price, and the rest is given over
to others - from publishers - distributors - and of course booksellers.
From way back in the distant days of Undersilkwood Books in Parnell [Hi
Murray] I seem to recall the bookseller gets around anything from 28% to
33% - the publishers a bit more, with distributors , editors etc coming in
as well and then of course, the author with his 10%.
I’d be happy to see this figures updated - however, my substantive point is

if Dr BE was to put out a new [international] edition what would be his
options around changing the maths so that he was able to edge into both
the publishers - distributes end of the value chain?
An immediate answer to this might be he set up his own online store and
go to market - thereby reaping the reward .
Another would be that he look to aggregate his opportunity by joining

with a whole bunch of other NZ authors to create a brilliant online
channel for his work.
To help with that, he might look to the likes of the Society of Authors, or
indeed Booksellers.
He might also like to consider why this hasn’t already - and then while
waiting for the answer to arrive by snail mail, as why other aspects of NZ
culture get online marketing and promotionally support on a daily basis.
As an example he might like to mosie on over to NZ Live [

http://www.nzlive.com and have a look at the resources put into promoting
NZ cultural events - as opposed to works.
While there he might like to ponder ont he irony that NZ Live was born at
the direct fiat of Helen Calrk, the subject of his biography, who in a rare
but not exclusive demonstration of how digital can enhance the cultural
sector, basically told the Wellington cultural bureacracy to ‘get in behind
and make it so’
I’m not advocating Wellington should get involved in the book trade -
perish the thought - however, I am asking, perhaps it’s time authors and
publishers - and NZ distributors got their act together and stopped
sending grumpy begging letters from the analogue rust belt.
60 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
140.
Roger H September 25th, 2009 at 12:06
“Society” has decided that the benefits of Libraries outweigh the cons.
The benefit of a more informed society regardless of socio-economic
status, against a possible loss to authors.
Given that most books go out of print quite quickly (is your book still in
print?) libraries ensure that society can continue to benefit from ideas in
books long after it would be uneconomic to continue to republish them.
Remember too that copyright was granted to authors (by “society” aka
The State) for a limited time, after which the material goes back into the
public domain for the benefit of society.
Copyright has always about balancing incentives for authors against the
public good.
This balance has been distorted.
May I challenge you to read The Public Domain by James Boyle, and
Copyright’s Paradox by Neil Weinstock Netanel to get an historical
perspective.
141.
wrightak September 25th, 2009 at 13:01
Brian is in the same state of denial as the record labels in the music
industry.
142.
“Retreating and recanting is not in my nature”, said the author, as he

tumbled over the abyss…”
Well, maybe “into” the abyss. But the Footnote is the same as a recant,
anyway; a kind of - albeit obtuse - de facto mea culpa. I’m of the opinion
that once a blog is posted, then: That’s it. It should never be modified,
61 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
just because of a backlash of indignant responses. It’s what the ‘good

doctor’ felt at the time, so he should back himself to the hilt; not wilt. BE
feels an acute sense of Injustice and Unfairness, and has used rather
emotive — and colourful — language to vent his long-held simmering
resentment against a public entity who he feels is cribbing food from his
plate. Nothing wrong in that. It became a lightning rod for debate, as
shown by the numbers who have contributed to this blog. And that can
only be good. One of his more popular blogs, you’d have to say.
143.
Fiona September 25th, 2009 at 13:50
If the ratepayers collectively purchase 6 copies of a book they are surely

entitled to share them amongst themselves.
I am surprised that publishers of books have not followed the model of
academic journals. Most journals charge institutional subscriptions that
are significantly higher than personal subscriptions, yet libraries usually
get books at a discount. Perhaps there should be an “institutional” price
for books too?
144.
Sam Minnée September 25th, 2009 at 14:26
Right on, Brian! And it’s not limited to libraries? Schools also engage in
this kind of theft on a massive scale!
Seriously, I thought this post was satirical.
145.
Paul Rowe September 25th, 2009 at 14:28
BE: “the reality is that the buyer of an artwork owns the artwork outright
and can do with it what he/she wants.”
The artist usually retains copyright, so the owner is not free to do with it
what he/she wants. Displaying the work on a website, for example, would
require copyright clearance from the artist.
62 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
146.
David September 25th, 2009 at 14:42
Fiona, heaven forbid that general publishers should follow the academic
route. It’s an even worse situation than Brian is railing against.
Academics (often funded in salary by governments) write articles for free,

review the articles for free, and serve as editors for free or a nominal fee.
In return the publishing companies sell these journals back to academic
institutions at extortionate prices, with annual increases far exceeding
inflation.
Ultimately Brian is vocalising a valid concern: that authors (similarly to

musicians and others artists, as others have noted) aren’t often fairly
recompensed for their work. But he’s wrong to lash out at the readers
themselves - it’s the publishers and the publishing model that should
largely be the focus for reform here.
147.
Sam Finnemore September 25th, 2009 at 16:07
Highly amused that calling library users “bludgers” has been recognised
as beyond the pale, but apparently it’s just fine to call people thieves for
on-lending books they’ve purchased outright.
I read more or less everything that Terry Pratchett ever wrote from the
Auckland public libraries, before I purchased a single book of his (I now
have four). I had a copy of another one lent to me by a friend and I
subsequently bought it. Likewise with Iain Banks; I now own eight of his
books, only three of which I hadn’t already read from the library before
purchasing.
I fully expect this to be discounted by our host as waffling personal

anecdata, but the point is that in none of the cases did I get the
equivalent value from borrowing from the library as I did from eventually
buying some of the books. Borrowing a book from a library is not actually
equivalent to owning a book indefinitely.
If libraries were producing on-demand facsimiles of “Helen” for customers

to keep indefinitely, that’d be theft. But they’re not - instead a small
number of copies are being circulated on a temporary basis, for the
63 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
benefit of people who presumably aren’t going to memorise the whole

damn thing or sell photocopied versions on street corners.
You’re right that the royalties paid back to authors through libraries
could be reviewed, but claiming that borrowing from libraries is bludging
(sorry, it’s out there now) and that lending one’s own copies to friends is
theft is just silly.
Doing some calculations from a librarian’s comment above, using your

hypothetical system the University of Waikato would now owe you $38.08
(before tax) in royalty payments. Loss of goodwill from calling your
readers thieves: priceless.
148.
Lytteltonian September 25th, 2009 at 22:28
“The creative life is unexpected. You never know what’s going to happen
with money and publishing. The people in the arts learn to live with this.
They learn to live with the erratic income and privilege of doing what they
really want to do.
“It’s no use being a writer and grizzling about money all the time –
although most writers do grizzle about money, it’s their favourite subject
when they get together!”
and
According to the 2006 Census, authors earned an average of $38,800 a

year and worked an average of 32 hours per week. This includes full and
part-time workers.
Source? http://www.careers.govt.nz/default.aspx?id0=1050103&
id1=J32320&id2=AA72C24A-B6B7-4806-A728-11450AB9CE36
and
http://www.careers.govt.nz/default.aspx?id0=60103&id1=J32320
149. Linkeracy 25 September 2009 • Tangled up in Purple September 25th, 2009 at

23:10
[...] side of the copyright debate. By the end of the week they were
looking more deeply at some of the Public Library copyright tensions.
Share the [...]
64 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
150.
Evil Mike September 26th, 2009 at 06:13
Amazing! I love your satire! The subtle irony you use to illustrate
ludicrousness is superb. Have you considered writing for The Onion? You
should!
Your gift of stating an ill-informed illogical idea in an impassioned

manner–almost as though you believed such tripe–is astounding!
I beg you, please do not let this gift of yours go to waste; we need more
satire illustrating just how asinine the present ‘entitlement’ beliefs about
copyright have become.
Thank you.
151.
deadzone September 26th, 2009 at 06:25
I find your position to be appalling.
Based on your crazy opinions and assertions I am a thief many times over
because I have both been to the Library and lent out books that I have.
152.
Todd Wiley September 26th, 2009 at 06:31
Finally!! I’ve been railing about this since 2004, thinking I’ve been alone
in the wilderness. While most people still think I’m a crank, it is nice to
see other people having issues with the library system and writer
compensation.
http://toddwiley.com/2004/12/17/google-and-libraries/
153. Free Readings Online » Blog Archive » New Zealand Author Claims
Libraries Are Involved In Grand Theft By Loaning Books September 26th,
2009 at 06:45
[...] Family Holloway, I came across a short opinion piece by Brian

Edwards bitching about how libraries are facilitating book theft. At first, I
65 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
honestly thought it was a joke or a parody, to make fun of those who

complain about [...]
154.
Tor September 26th, 2009 at 07:07
BF wrote “And for all your high-minded rationalisations, the principal

function of copyright is to vest in the originator of a work the sole right to
reproduce (or perform) that work or to authorise others to do so”
Why? Your statement doesn’t answer that question. If this system led to
bad consequences for the general public, would we still support it?
You talk about entitlement, but copyright is only about promoting the
public good (”to promote the progress of science and useful arts” as the
US constitution puts it). It’s not an individual right that can be compared
to property rights. Rather it is a means, as part of an utilitarian system, to
an end. Unfortunately people have over time come to be confused about
this, thinking that protection is a goal in itself. The protection is just a
necessary evil in order to create a system that gives the public access to
more high-quality works.
If you disagree about the goal being to serve the public good, then please
explain why intellectual rights are time limited (state confiscation of
property?) or why patent and copyright terms differ so radically (are
engineers less entitled to their work?).
Regarding the second-hand market it seems as if you ignore that it raises

the value of the product. Imagine that you could no longer sell a car at
the second hand market. That would mean that a new car gets much less
valuable and the prices on new cars would drop. Now, books are a bit
different, but I still think the same argument applies to a certain degree.
If people were hindered from selling a book they would feel less like it
were their own copy and hence attach less value to it. So actually, there is
some financial return for the author since it’s possible to sell new books at
a higher price.
Btw. Just like Tony I agree that public subsidies, if such are present,
should be distributed according to the number of times a book is lended
rather than the number of books that the libraries own. That’s the way it
works where I live, although the subsidy is about 1/10 of what you
proposed. Again, entitlement is not the issue, but rather how to promote
the common good in the best possible way. That is neither something that
66 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
can ignore author’s situation nor something that can be dictated by the
authors.
155. Are Public Libraries a form of theft? « Hype Cycles September 26th, 2009 at
07:57
[...] 25, 2009 — amrith The title of this article is derived from the title of
the article “Why Public Libraries are just a Form of Theft” by Brian
Edwards and the post by Michael Masnick on TechDirt, “New Zealand
Author Claims Libraries Are [...]
156.
Jim Howard September 26th, 2009 at 08:03
I’m not familiar with the law of your country, but here in the U.S. you
could have put shrinkwrap on your book with a warning that opening the
wrap implies consent to the license inside.
You can then include a license that forbids the buyer from lending the
book to anyone.
At least for your U.S. sale this is the route I suggest you take. Discuss it
with your publisher, I’m sure they will love this idea.
157.
Grant September 26th, 2009 at 12:18
Jim Howard wrote: “You can then include a license that forbids the buyer
from lending the book to anyone.
At least for your U.S. sale this is the route I suggest you take. Discuss it
with your publisher, I’m sure they will love this idea.”
Hell, why not have the license include when and where the book can be
read? Maybe, between the hours of 5-11pm on Mon, Wed and weekends.
And no more than two members of the reader’s immediate family maybe
present when the book is opened; and the reading must be confined to no
more than two nominated rooms of the reader’s home; and must never
leave the premises, without written consent from the publisher and/or his
agent. Yep, let’s nail this indiscriminate lending and freelance reading,
once and for all.
67 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
158.
Nick September 26th, 2009 at 17:23
Authors work in a funny way. First they work without getting paid then
they expect to get paid without doing any work. Both are wrongs and
authors hope that two wrongs make a right.
Libraries are doing “right.” They lend the book which costs the author
nothing in work and they don’t charge for it which is a fair pay for a fair
amount of work.
The real cheats are pirates who get paid for doing no work and publishers
who (in my opinion) get too high a share of the book price and who make
books WAY more expensive in NZ than they are in the US.
159.
Will de Cleene September 26th, 2009 at 20:22
Sheesh. What do you make of second hand bookstores then, Dr Edwards?

More theft?
160.
prizebig.ru September 27th, 2009 at 00:52
Thank you very much for that marvelous article
161.
Marian the Retired Librarian September 27th, 2009 at 05:07
Mr. Edwards,
Your original post — which I originally thought to be satiric — hit so many

nerve endings that I had to wait 24 hours until my numb fingers were
capable of finding the keys.
Back in the day when most people did not have the means to purchase
books, the relationship between authors and public libraries was a two
68 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
bottles of champagne in a hot tub love fest. Publishers recognized

libraries as a prime market and catered to them as and investment in free
advertising. Reinforced book bindings reflected a publisher’s anticipation
that each copy would be subject to many borrowings.
I sense that your book was not exactly an eagerly awaited volume that
people were standing in line around the block at midnight to purchase.
One has such high hopes for one’s literary offspring during the gestation
period. And then, when they’re unable to compete socially with their more
exciting attractive classmates, there’s a tendency to fob off the blame
rather than assess the reality of why that is so, though they remain no less
cherished in your eyes.
Quit whining and thank whatever deity you recognize that there are still
such things as public libraries standing at the ready with public dollars to
buy copies of your Clark biography that would otherwise go unnoticed
and unsold. If you lived in the states, some conservative brain trust would
probably be calling that “socialism.” Today’s best sellers are held together
with dental floss and spit and need to be replaced frequently as they
disintegrate from library use. Perhaps that helps even the ratio, assuming
readers are actually reading what you wrote.
162.
Maik Addams September 27th, 2009 at 05:28
The comparision about digital music to a physical book is completely

invalid. Digital music is easily distributed because it can be copied and
duplicated. You cant do this to books and the libraries are certainly not
duplicating your books, this is not a copyright issue.
163.
richard September 27th, 2009 at 06:53
and what about foreign sales? Worldcat shows a little a little over a dozen
U.S. and U.K. libraries hold copies- presumably purchased. With your U.S.
Amazon sales ranking of about 2 million suggesting statistically
insignificant sales in the U.S. you wouldn’t have had any foreign
circulation of your book without public libraries.
You may have missed the line in my blog which says, ‘And obviously only a
fraction of the 2,729 people who notionally borrowed Helen, Portrait of a
69 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Prime Minister, would have bought a copy from Whitcoulls, Borders or

Paper Plus if public libraries had been banned.’ Perhaps you have
difficulty reading.
>As to the ‘bulk purchase’ being ‘the most money >you would ever have
been likely to make, along >with academic libraries”, I gave the number
of >copies of the Helen book in public libraries as >227. Perhaps you
missed that as well.
No, I caught that, but either you’re more famous than I know or less
famous than you think you are, because I still don’t know if 227 copies is
the most, or the majority, of the copies of this book sold.
164.
Anne Kaelber September 27th, 2009 at 07:43
1. How did you do the research for your book? Did you *purchase* each
and every source you used to compile the book? (Or, in other words, is
your word itself an “accessory to theft”?)
2. When I was a child, my *only* books were library books. Now, as an

adult, I’m struggling to find the books I loved at my library to add to my
personal collection. At the rate books are going out-of-print, it is a
challenging proposition. I buy (and read!) many books in a calendar year.
Those books are purchased because of my love for reading which
developed from my frequent library trips as a child.
3. Yes, I lend my books out. By doing so, I’ve created new fans of authors I
enjoy. If someone goes to a library to read a book and *doesn’t* buy a copy
of the book, they probably never would have to begin with. Libraries are
critical to creating new readers. This is more important now, with fewer
people reading.
I’ve taken note of your name and will *not* be adding any of your titles to
my library. I see no reason to spend my hard-earned money on your works.
Thank you for warning me.
Anne.
165.
David H. September 27th, 2009 at 11:41
70 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
You are quite right. But the libraries are only the tip of the iceberg. Our
nation’s schools are complicit in this thievery by regularly assigning work
which encourages students to go to libraries and use the books in them,
rather than the students purchasing their own copies with the sweat of
their brow. Some schools even maintain class sets of books which they
lend out to students year after year, and what benefit do authors see from
this? Only the creation of a life long appreciation of their work among
people who would otherwise never be exposed to it, and that’s useless for
immediate cash flow- you have to wait for the kids to grow up into book
buying adults.
Clearly, this is a case were multinational corporations are far better suited
to providing reading material than individual authors. Such companies
are more than willing to provide classroom study and reading material in
the hope that such works will be consumed by as many people as possible.
Leaving such reading choices in the hands of corporate marketing
departments makes sure no more author’s works are stolen by
unauthorised sharing.
166.
Jeb September 27th, 2009 at 12:08
Brian, you still able to walk after having shot yourself, in both feet?
167.
Lynne Pope September 27th, 2009 at 20:36
“We have something in Godzone called the New Zealand Authors’ Fund.”
We did, until it was disestablished and replaced under the Public Lending
Right for New Zealand Authors Act 2008.
If I may refresh your memory, the New Zealand Society of Authors lobbied
Parliament for stand-alone legislation to ensure that New Zealand authors’
got a fair deal. The Bill went to Select Committee. The Government
Administration Committee called for submissions.
I assume you availed yourself of the opportunity to make a submission.
The funding for the Public Lending Right comes directly from central
government. The funding for public libraries comes from ratepayers. Your
argument seems to be based on the premise that because central
government does not pay you enough then ratepayers should pay you
71 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
twice - once when they pay to keep their libraries stocked with books,
again when they read them.
Interesting concept…
168.
hotspot shield September 28th, 2009 at 04:06
That’s So COOL…who knew ?
169.
forum.xakepok.net September 28th, 2009 at 04:41
Maki…as always, great post here.
170.
online filmid September 28th, 2009 at 06:57
What if your gaurdian over your account of money wont let you have your
money?
171.
peter September 28th, 2009 at 08:42
“There is no intellectual property in a chainsaw, unless someone is going

to steal the design or patent”
Could you explain this ‘intellectual property’ thing to me and explain how
it is different in, for example, creating a book and designing a chainsaw.
Both take hard work, both take intellect, both take investment, both take
time, both take expertise. I am assuming that is what is meant by
intellectual property. The ‘intellectual property’ of the book and the
chainsaw are both protected, just by different legal means (copyright vs.
design/patent).
So what i do not understand is the argument why the intellectual property
in a book means that lending it is the same as theft, but lending a
chainsaw (which also contains intellectual property) is just fine.
72 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
172.
GL September 28th, 2009 at 10:56
I wouldn’t make pretense that everyone is like me but I was introduced to

works of various authors through library when I was younger. I’ve since
collected all their publications. To this day I would borrow a book, read it
and see if I enjoy it before I commit to purchasing further work from the
author.
As it stands if no such avenue is available, I would not purchase those

books.
Of course, if I couldn’t borrow books from library years ago, I would even
have acquired habit of reading so purchasing choice would not have been
an issue in the first place…
173.
Are you serious? September 28th, 2009 at 14:37
I think you’re just being greedy. Not only are you wanting to deprive
people of a valuable service, you are also complaining of receiving only
$40,500 for 6 months work. Most people dont earn that in one year let
alone 6months.
Also music pirating is different in that you get to keep the downloaded
song, whereas with a library the book needs to be returned and if you
want to keep a copy you need to pay for it.
174.
Dylan Horrocks September 28th, 2009 at 17:02
Brian, I want to be polite, but really… This is the stupidest thing I’ve read
on the issue of copyright ever. Theft? Good grief!! You sound like
Ebenezer Scrooge…
As an author myself, I consider free public libraries to be one of the most

wonderful creations of human civilsation. The notion of a writer who
doesn’t love libraries is… well, I just can’t get my head around it.
Do you actually like books, Brian? Or just royalty cheques? I’m
73 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
flabbergasted, honestly…
175.
Graeme September 28th, 2009 at 21:50
I wonder whether you have considered signing with a publisher who

would agree not to sell your book to libraries?
I’m sure there aren’t any (yet), but you could start a trend!
Make A Comment:
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Send Comment
News Feed Share & Send to a Friend
Categories
Blog
Home
Media Reviews
Media Tips
74 of 75 13/10/09 13:31
Archive
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
Copyright Brian Edwards Media 2009
75 of 75 13/10/09 13:31

Brian Edwards Public Libraries Are Theft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brian Edwards Public Libraries Are Theft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brian Edwards Public Libraries Are Theft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why Public Libraries are just a Form of Theft @ Br... http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:5H4CFBrX...

This is Google's cache of http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2009/09/why-public-libraries-

Brian Edwards Media

So you’ve just been reading in the paper about the zillions

I’m not complaining about that either. But…

recognise the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Note: In the original version of this post I used the word

Crime, New Zealand Authors' Fund, Public Libraries

Sean September 23rd, 2009 at 16:52

Hmmm, slippery slope Brian.

While I do acknowledge that authorship in New Zealand is not the

Say ‘Investigate’ magazine, or the Kiwiblog comments section.

Public libraries in New Zealand, provide a vital service to the public by

River Howe September 23rd, 2009 at 21:18

paul reynolds September 23rd, 2009 at 23:08

If I have an interest in an author’s idea or imagination I might buy their

However, if I want to own a copy of an authors work, I will buy it.

There is no theft involved. It’s a choice I have.

As to the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to lend books to others -

BE September 24th, 2009 at 00:09

BE September 24th, 2009 at 00:13

There is no intellectual property in a chainsaw, unless someone is going to

BE September 24th, 2009 at 00:20

Hmmm, slippery slope Brian.

richard September 24th, 2009 at 02:02

Matthew Holloway September 24th, 2009 at 02:58

In your article you’re interchangeably describing (1) the theft of a

Copyright is a balance of public and private rights; it always has been,

copyright as to progress the arts, and New Zealand lawmakers have

Debating the balance in terms of “theft”, “crime” and stealing is

Others see libraries as stimulating the publics’ interest in books with

We need surveys, economic models, theories, and testing to see how

Perhaps there are some parallels to be drawn here:

user pays per-unit is the norm online.

A Spotify-like service for books, perhaps something like the publisher

To me that sounds like something the public would get behind.

Jonathan Hattrell September 24th, 2009 at 09:32

BE September 24th, 2009 at 10:06

Ben September 24th, 2009 at 10:10

As a bludger who makes full use of public libraries I have a certain

Ben September 24th, 2009 at 10:14

PS According to your principles I assume you never lend books to or

Mickey Rodent September 24th, 2009 at 10:15

Everyone who enjoys reading will be somewhat disappointed (if not

Libraries form a vital community service transcending the lending of

life’s luxuries as reading a good book, snugly ensconced under my duvet.

BE September 24th, 2009 at 10:24

You describe parts of what I wrote as disingenuous. I’d describe parts of

BE September 24th, 2009 at 10:31

Juha September 24th, 2009 at 10:48

Theft of intellectual property is clearly something that cannot be allowed

paul reynolds September 24th, 2009 at 10:50

If so - I have two points to make .

We bought a Dick Frizell. It is one of his Antarctica series. It hangs on our

I doubt if we own it though - it still “belongs to Dick F” in as much as he

In short are we to give up the whole idea of public libraries as a public

Matthew Holloway September 24th, 2009 at 11:06

subject, or an author, and cause purchases?

I don’t think you understand what copyright is.

Copyright is infact designed to be good for society through a balance of