Slashdot Mirror
Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services
Ernest Adams writes "The BBC is reporting that the British Library is concerned about DRM's effect on its ability to make materials available to the public. Libraries have a legal right to distribute materials under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law, but DRM systems may block this. Furthermore, they point out that DRM systems don't automatically switch themselves off when a work goes out of copyright. DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to. Worse yet, if the software no longer exists to unlock a DRM-protected file, its contents may be lost forever -- exactly the thing libraries are intended to prevent." We've discussed stories like this before.
We don't have "fair use" in UK copyright law, at least not in the sense it's usually used around here to refer to the exemptions in the US.
However, a small number of national reference libraries in the UK, including the British Library, have a special legal right to claim a free copy of works published in the UK.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's why the OP specified that the unencumbered version be supplied to the "copryight library" and not every library purchasing a DRM'd copy as you interpreted it.
A clue?
I'm not a librarian, but my mother was, and I have an MLIS myself. The average librarian has likely thought more about information than most people have, and in a more formalized manner. Librarians are concerned with information as a disclipline in and of itself in ways that no other profession is, and longer than any other profession. Most librarians have a Masters degree in which they learn about information- how people use and access information, how information can be organized, presented, and so on. So they certainly know how to evaluate resources and can tell the difference between a Tom Clancy novel and an encyclopedia entry. They're also concerned with issues involving authority, authenticity, integrity, and other information-related problems. Public librarianship, in particular (note that not all librarians are public or academic librarians) have a strong history of protecting intellectual freedom. Don't assume that just because something is entertainment that there are no intellectual freedom issues. If someone is denying access to information, you need to look at why first.
Sadly, it's not a right. The law only says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright. If it was a right, then the anti-circumvention measures in the DMCA would have been much harder to pass. If a librarian circumvents DRM, even for a use that is determined fair, they are very likely liable for the act.
(Not a librarian, but have an MLIS and have been advised by legal counsel.)
Stuff that you think up is your property right up until the point where it's no longer in your head and you tell other people. Then it's no longer your property, it's public. A book you write may be your property and I can't steal it from you, but the words in it are not. A painting is your property, but if someone else copies it, that's not stealing the painting from you.
The whole concept of copyright and patents for any time at all was very controversial back in the day. It's only relatively recently that people have developed the fucked up view you hold.
Yes, Sony Rootkits did make it into libraries. Yes, most librarians know not to stock such titles. Many are quite technologically proficient and follow sites like Slashdot. :P
I was the coauthor of a technical book, "Using Samba", published in the United States and Canada by O'Reilly and associates. Despite being made available electronically for no cost, the book was the outstanding seller in its class, and made me substantial royalties.
The History of "Using Samba"
This book was published without any form of explicit DRM, in a format suitable for printing from personal computers, with no limitations on distribution of personal printing, and with a license reserving only commercial printing rights to the publisher.
There was an implicit form of rights management, in that only commercial printers have equipment capable of printing and binding on sufficiently thin paper to make a manageable book: if printed on conventional photocopier paper, the book is over three inches thick. Printing small sections for reference on photocopier paper is perfectly practical, but large-scale printing is not.
This effectively reinforced the reservations in the license: printing for profit is both illegal and impractical, but personal printing, excerpting and copying is unrestricted.
The net result is that the book was widely used as a reference, and the on-line readers bought the physical book for its more convenient form in great numbers. O'Reilly has since published a non-trivial number of other books in this manner.
How copyright deposit libraries should deal with DRM issues
Copyright and other deposit libraries, such as the National Libraries of the U.K., Canada and the United States should seek and retain unrestricted copies, offering suitable statutory protection to the authors or publishers.
Upon the expiry of the copyright, the deposit libraries should make the originals available for a nominal fee.
Upon the failure or discontinuance of a DRM scheme, the publishers should retain the option of republishing under a different scheme under ordinary copyright law.
On cessation of publication, the copyright should by statute continue for no less than seven years. After this time, upon request by a member of the public, the copyright deposit library should advertise that copyright is deemed to have lapsed, and that it will offer the unrestricted copy within no more than one year. A copyright owner may then give notice that they have in fact recommenced publication, and if so the copyright deposit library shall advertise that fact and not release the unrestricted copy.
davecb@spamcop.net
It is my understanding that the DMCA makes circumventing digital restrictions unlawful when it relates to copyright material. So if the copyright has expired, cracking the DRM does not violate the DMCA.
Of course, as other posters have mentioned, those of us in the US will probably be blessed with perpetual copyright (a la Micky Mouse).
I am an etwork admin in a library. Many libraries have cd and dvd repairing machines (the professional kind) so all it takes is to let them know that a cd is scratched. Second Atleats the libary that I work in has a bigger dvd collection then probably the local blockbusters and holywood videos. This could harm many libraries because people dont read books anymore. Libraries depend on free computer and wifi access and the cd and dvd takeout. Oh trust me the riaa and mpaa will hear about it.
Please use the content of my message freely.
Though I suggest you paraphrase if you or anyone else chooses to contact your representative yourself. They tend not to appreciate form letters.
The answer to that would seem to be no, as the dmca only applies to copyrighted material.
Under your interpretation of 1201 and foreign counterparts, it's legal to crack Charlie Chaplin DVDs and to make and sell circumvention devices that work with Charlie Chaplin DVDs. Under another interpretation, as long as a given DRM format is in active use to restrict even one copyrighted work, it's illegal to make or sell circumvention devices that work with such a format. Courts haven't yet clearly stated which interpretation they will apply.