swellmomma Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 We have all talked here at length about how many library books we all take out at once and how much that saves us in the cost of new books if we had purchased that many. But I got to wondering today if libraries are a rip off for authors. If you bought the book the author would get x amount of $ for it. But what about libraries, obviously the writer is not getting something from each of those readers. So does a good library system actually penalize an author? Do libraries pay more for an item than the general public to be allowed to circulate it? Hmm maybe that is why their replacement charges are so insane. Like I said stupid question of the day, but does anyone know how author's are compensated if at all for libraries to be able to circulate a title? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomatHWTK Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The author is paid for the initial purchase but not each time the book is borrowed. I think the volume of libraries and the fact that they often purchase multiple copies probably helps make up for the potential loss in sales. Plus, many of those copies would not be purchased by individual consumers they would just never be read. Not everyone would purchase every cute picture book they saw. KWIM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerbread Mama Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I think the higher replacement cost can be more attributed to the way the book is bound than royalties. I don't know, I don't think it takes away from an author. We own tons of books (literally, tons) but we still check out many, many books from the library....I wouldn't have anywhere to put them all if I didn't. Plus, I would like to think that the author would WANT their book to end up in the library to be read by many. Anyway, if I started thinking along those lines I'd soon be asking myself if you should pay each time you re-read books you own :tongue_smilie: Where does it stop? (I know, you weren't taking it that far...I was being more humorous than anything else.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardening momma Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I think the volume of libraries and the fact that they often purchase multiple copies probably helps make up for the potential loss in sales. Plus, many of those copies would not be purchased by individual consumers they would just never be read. Not everyone would purchase every cute picture book they saw. KWIM? :iagree: And popular books get worn out more quickly and then replaced by the library as needed. So that generates more purchases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharon H in IL Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I read that in Denmark an author receives a royalty payment for each time his book is checked out of a library. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The libraries are established by state law for the public good from the days when it was expense to buy and read books. I doubt that the amount of money each author loses from library books is very big. They probably lose more people giving away, reselling or pirating books. I would guess a large percentage of books in libraries are past their copyright and in public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The libraries are established by state law for the public good from the days when it was expense to buy and read books. I doubt that the amount of money each author loses from library books is very big. They probably lose more people giving away, reselling or pirating books. I would guess a large percentage of books in libraries are past their copyright and in public domain. Even then it's a great way to advertise. Most libraries wouldn't buy every book written by a author, or every book a person might want to read. What I think sometimes happens (hopefully often) is someone reads library books and discovers books that they just want to own, or a author they love and the library doesn't have all the books. Or one book leads to another to another and to another. - some the library doesn't have to the person goes shopping. Without libraries I think many more people would not be readers. And with less readers there would be less people buying books. And with less people buying books there would be less readers .... I think that the death of libraries (Or the ability to get books for free via future and current tech.) will be a major step towards the death of people willing to buy books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks for the replies ladies. It was one of those weird errant thoughts that cropped up as I was putting a pile of books on hold with my library. WHile I own hundreds of books I only own 2 on the titanic and we are starting a unit study today so I wanted a pile of others for the book basket. Anyway as I was putting my pile on hold I was thinking about how much it would have cost me to buy all those books etc. I am glad to hear it is not harming the author's. And had/have no intention of changing my library usage. I will always heavily utilize it. I do see the point about someone getting hooked on an author. I started reading Charlaine Harris books at the library and now buy the new one each time it comes out. Or I borrow an education or parenting book and if I love it I go out and buy it. At least as far as my bizarre thoughts go this one is mild (In high school I suddenly was hit with the question of whether or not cows have belly buttons for example; and the query if identical twin boys married identical twin girls whether or not their children would be genetically siblings or cousins). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Smith Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks for the replies ladies. It was one of those weird errant thoughts that cropped up as I was putting a pile of books on hold with my library. WHile I own hundreds of books I only own 2 on the titanic and we are starting a unit study today so I wanted a pile of others for the book basket. Anyway as I was putting my pile on hold I was thinking about how much it would have cost me to buy all those books etc. I am glad to hear it is not harming the author's. And had/have no intention of changing my library usage. I will always heavily utilize it. I do see the point about someone getting hooked on an author. I started reading Charlaine Harris books at the library and now buy the new one each time it comes out. Or I borrow an education or parenting book and if I love it I go out and buy it. At least as far as my bizarre thoughts go this one is mild (In high school I suddenly was hit with the question of whether or not cows have belly buttons for example; and the query if identical twin boys married identical twin girls whether or not their children would be genetically siblings or cousins). Thanks to the library we are readers here, and own all 36 books in the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, among other books. As for the twin question what did you find out. It's just a interesting Spin-off. My Grampa had a sister, and my Gramma had a brother. So my Grampa's brother married my Gramma's sister. I know it's not twin's but it has got to count for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Thanks to the library we are readers here, and own all 36 books in the Xanth series by Piers Anthony, among other books. As for the twin question what did you find out. It's just a interesting Spin-off. My Grampa had a sister, and my Gramma had a brother. So my Grampa's brother married my Gramma's sister. I know it's not twin's but it has got to count for something. Well after much debate among those that I spoke to (and I asked many people including dr's for years). Was that they would at a genetic level be siblings because the mothers/fathers being identical twins had the same DNA. IN the case of your family they would be genetically cousins, because while they shared familial DNA it was not exactly the same the way it is in identical twins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 You can see this Holstein's belly button--they're outies:http://www.olyfarm.org/looking-for-friesian-cows-for-sale.html That's cool. I did figure out they had them when I was reminded that all mammals have umbilical cords. And then I felt foolish for not thinking of that sooner. I blame it on my then teenage brain fog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.