Libraries Use DRM to Expire Audiobooks

Valleye writes "CNN is reporting that some US libraries are using Microsoft Media DRM to automatically 'return' audiobooks checked out of their catalog. A patron with a valid library card visits a library Web site to borrow a title for, say, three weeks. When the audiobook is due, the patron must renew it or find it automatically "returned" in a virtual sense: The file still sits on the patron's computer, but encryption makes it unplayable beyond the borrowing period."

Comments

DRM

[Fuzzy_Nuts]

A perfect use for DRM tech. DRM always catches a bad rep. I for one am glad to see that technology still has a place in everyday america.

Re:DRM

[Fuzzy_Nuts]

Thats not what this article was about. The reason it sounds better is becuase it's a fair use system. Presumably the library bought the book, and therefore own a copy of the book. You then agree to borrow the book for a certian amount of time. Whereas when you DRM protect a CD, you cannot let your friend borrow the DRM protected content because you not your friend own the DRM. You cannot sell the DRM to your friend because thats not how it works. The reason this sounds better is because it's an actual fair use agreement.

But...

[postgrep]

Couldn't someone just use an audio program (cubase, cakewalk etc) to make a loopback recording, effectively making a non-DRM copy? This technology seems effective in expiration dates, but ineffective against piracy. Still.

Library Checkout System Outdated?

[taskforce]

Isn't the whole point in returning a book to a library because there are a finite ammount of copies for people to read, so it would be unfair if you kept them for a long time.

If digital audiobooks can have infinite copies made of them and distributed to the Library's members then is there actually a need to have them checked back in?

Re:Library Checkout System Outdated?

[BorgDrone]

And this is exactly the problem with DRM and the whole copyright thing.

You have to return a normal dead-tree book because there are only a few copies, and making more copies costs time, materials and money. Because of this, the product is scarce and thus market forces (supply/demand) apply.

Digital media, however, can be copied without any significant costs whatsoever, there is no longer a 'real' scarcity. The publishers are still trying to sell the work on a per-copy basis like they always did, combined with negligible reproduction costs this means lots-of-$$$. Unfortunately for the publishers, consumers are recognizing that there the products scarcity is purely fictional, and they don't accept this.

Re:What is the problem..

[SolitaryMan]

Audiobooks... I can't figure out what the problem is with reading...

I can give you several reasons:

1. You can listen to the audio book, when there is no light or it is not satisfactory. (I do that when I travel by train at night)
2. You can listen to it when you are jogging, walking or driving.
3. When I come back from work, my eyes are already tired enough, so reading can be literally painful...

Libraries should rethink DRM

[mattr]

To posters who said this is why DRM is useful, consider what is the POINT of a library?

It is not a bookstore or cd/video rental shop. Patrons do not pay money each time they take a book out. They may be charged late fees due to scarcity issues, but the main idea is to enable the person to read the content.

The person can come back many times to take the book out again if he needs more time. But there is no point physically going to the library if it is a digital item on his drive.

In other words, even if the liscense required only a fixed number of people being able to view a title at a given time, it STILL would not make sense, because the DRM does not know if there are enough other copies to go around. It might be that nobody else is in fact interested in the file.

Therefore, the idea of a DRM "period" is bogus. At the very least, the user should be able to add another period if there are enough copies left in the stacks. It should not require an Internet line either, and it should be able to run on free software not some attackware that executes on my computer in a manner contrary to my wishes.

I have another point that may be unpopular with big business. It would be much better in my book if the library was able to purchase more items on a sliding scale as things got more popular, but not be bound to micromanage every copy on a user's hard drive.

You see, the point of the library is to ensure that everyone can get access to information, not just people with a lot of disposable income. You don't have to go buy the book or cd/dvd if your library has it. A library is not intended to be a marketing mechanism that makes you want to go buy the title. It is not intended to respond to the marketplace due to its competition with a bookstore/rental shop.

Considering that most people don't check the same book out of their library over and over again, a library normally wouldn't care if the user had a way to keep copies after returning them. The library has no responsibility for making sure that the user does not keep a copy on his drive even after the first time the user has read the copy, because it is there to promote access, not control access (except adult content maybe). If there is a good library nearby, you should never have to go to a store to get what you want.

Therefore, it stands to reason that:

1. DRM erasing files on your machine after a given period is WRONG. Lateness should engender late fees, so the person can balance opportunity cost at least.
2. You can't "lose" a file like you can lose or destroy a book, and books at least can be distributed for massively less money on cd or online. Such cost savings should be figured in when purchasing and when deciding on checkout policies.
3. Even if the library purchases titles with a maximum simultaneous readers clause in it, if enough copies are available it should extend the period so that late fees are waived.
4. The library should be able to calculate AVERAGE SIMULTANEOUS READERSHIP of a given title to maximize its investment and give readers some of the benefits of digital technology. In other words, it should allow a burst of MORE simultaneous users than contracted, and then balance that out by artificially reducing the number of titles that can be simultaneously read at a later date. This can be amortized over a Very Long Time (tm), which gives the library some time to consider buying more simultaneous liscenses when it really needs them.
5. Libraries should demand contracts with publishers which allow them to calculate average simultaneous readership to allow for readership bursts (say due to holidays or related news events). Libraries must also demand the option to easily purchase more liscenses at a later time based on an industry-wide open standard compliant form.
6. Libraries should fight tooth and nail against DRM that erases information and any other tools that undermine what a library is typically supposed to do.
7. High cost

Ultimately not reasonable.

[k.a.f.]

No, it is not reasonable, because the world changes.

Some people write books to make money. Some people write books because
it satisfies them personally. Back when book copying was infeasibly
expensive, both of them had an incentive for continuing to write. Now
that copying has become feasibly cheap, those that write only for the
money have less of an incentive, and that is as should be (cue
Heinlein quote).

Establishing artificial restrictions on copying in order to prop up a
failed incentive is ultimately wasteful.