We concur with the DCMS viewpoint that logic would dictate that the period PLRG should cover after an author's death should be the same as current UK copyright law. We note that DCMS may look at this again when other scheme changes are being considered. We understand that reciprocal arrangements have already proved successful on a bilateral basis with Germany and that other European countries have expressed an interest following publication of this proposal. We are delighted that DCMS are willing to take the lead on establishing the principle of reciprocity within Europe. This would not only reduce the bureaucracy and costs associated with having to deal with a plethora of licensing bodies, but it would also provide a framework for the lending of materials for which no licensing body exists.
Cost is the other major factor.
We have expressed before our concerns about the costs of copyright compliance and the negative impact this might have on levels of service. In our view a nationally administered scheme would not only be more transparent as to cost, but it would also help to ensure that local budgets, notably budgets for books and other library materials, would not be squeezed further to take into account this new obligation and to the immediate disbenefit of library users. The Library Association appreciates that this is a complex area which is worthy of further research and consideration. Therefore we would support MLAC taking this on as an early task and making recommendations for the future. We would stress, however, that decisions on this matter cannot be delayed for long as there are already moves to establish new licensing agencies, some of which may not be in the interest of library users.