The text of the directive didn’t do it, but the Commission’s view and the Court’s agreement was that such a broad exemption was effectively a nullification of the directive.

As for academic libraries v public libraries, when the USI statement was written, it was in line with a USI policy that specifically mentioned academic libraries – presumably because it was of more direct relevance to the membership. As I said, personally I don’t agree with PLR in any situation.

I like your argument about overpriced rubbish and I dare you to put that in a letter to your favourite Senator

I do not see why you and USI think that authors of books in public libraries should be paid for their intellectual effort but that academic authors should get almost nothing. Do you really think authors of academic titles are less deserving of lending royalties than the man who wrote the Haynes service manual for the Toyota Corolla?

Surely the fact that academic libraries are so beneficial is a good reason why there should be a levy. It would make more sense if USI argued its case from the facts, i.e., that few people actually read the books they borrow from academic libraries and most of them are turgid overpriced rubbish.

What is the way to support writers?

Thanks for the link. I completely agree with you. This is not the way to support writers!

We will see exactly how long the funding is there to keep paying this PLR without cutting back in other areas. Frankly I think it is one of the daftest pieces of legislation I have seen in quite some time!

Eoin