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.
The librarians are making some good points about further flaws in DRM. I'm glad to see the media finally starting to pick up on this and report stories about the dark side of DRM. Now if we could only get more mentions of it on THIS side of the pond, maybe people other than the technically adept will start to get pissed about DRM and force some change.
OK, not likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?
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.
:)
I would think that's where the people that enjoy breaking DRM protection comes into play. It would be nice to get a government sanction to break into content for the fun of it. Or at least I'm assuming it'd be nice for people that can actually do it
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
See, here's where we, the nerds and IT folk, need to work with the librarians and support them.
I had the priveledge of speaking with a librarian on a plane ride one time. While not particularly tech saavy, she was quite passionate about information freedom and privacy. It hadn't even occurred to me until that point that the librarians had been working for what so many of us had believed in for a long time. They were the Googles before we had Google.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I wonder if any of the sony rootkits have made it into the music collections of libraries? Would the librarians even know to not stock those titles?
I was involved in some video Copy Protection Technology standardisation efforts in Europe and had to sit round the table with the MPAA. ANY attempt to bring an argument along the lines of "how do we put the copyright expiration date into the DRM metadata" was laughed at. None of the technology companies were interested in running with the idea either - the consumers rights could just go hang.
All part of life in the behind-the-scenes world of technology standardisation.
"DRM systems may allow copyright holders to retain control over their material longer than they are legally entitled to."
I'm not sure I agree with this point of view. It seems to me that it's not a right to control material and copyright confers, but the right to legal protection from infringement on that material. If I decide I want to go a step further with something I produce, and lock it up in a way that will keep people from doing what they want with it after I can no longer count on legal protection, then isn't that my prerogative?
That said, I don't really agree with that approach, I'm just not a fan of telling a creator what they can do with their creation.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Surely the best solution here is a modification to the law such that any protected digital work must have an unencumbered version of the data lodged with the copyright libraries? This copy is for archive use only until the work falls into the public domain, at which point it is made freely available.
Artists are protected, execs still get the most important part of their wet dream, and most importantly, the public gets it's dues.
Gosh- I would never do it, because I don't get to the library as much as I would like...
But my library has a very extensive CD collection, including a lot of expensive boxed sets that are available for 2 week checkout. They also have a lot of new and mainstream stuff. (When I was younger, the library in my town had a lot of Bob Denver and classical music that I wasn't interested in at the time)
If someone wanted to load up their iPod or iTunes or whatever with thousands of songs, the library would be a good place to utilize.
I wonder how long before the RIAA sues libraries to see who is checking out a lot of music... Or how long before they demand that all media available at libraries is heavily DRM-ed.
Reminds me of Shawshenk Redemption, when Andy says that the songs are in his head, and they can never take them away...
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
As a defence of DRM, that would be fine... if the content cartels hadn't managed to get a law passed that makes the exercise of fair use not only difficult, but illegal.
Absolutely. The evil thing about the WIPO treaties' laws (DMCA included) is that they play lip-service to respecting fair use, but make it impossible to claim it. In the US, you are technically permitted to break the DRM for your own personal use (this is exempt under the DMCA), but you are forbidden from ever telling anyone how you went about breaking the DRM. This effectively limits legal fair use to advanced electronics and computer engineers who have a lot of time on their hands.
What I'd love to see (and I know I never will) is for copyright protection to only be granted to works that can be copied. If you publish a work (book, software, music, etc.) on a medium that permits someone to make copies, then you can legally enforce your "copy right" against anyone who infringes that right.
If, however, you publish something that prevents copies from being made, then you forfeit the legal mechanism that the government has granted you. You are taking the job of preventing infringment of your work out of the government's hand, and taking responsibility for that yourself. After all, why should you be given protection from illicit copying of their work when your work is "uncopyable"?
I know, it won't happen. It probably tips the copyright balance too far in the other direction. But dare to dream...
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
I was recently in a room with a high ranking IT person from the U.S. Library of Congress.
He essentially said the same thing, but here is where it gets interesting.
He remarked (from my imperfect memory) "People don't understand the amount of money thrown at senators and congressman from media companies to get some favorable legislation. It's so political now that we've been instructed by the head of the library of congress to not comment on this issue, so you can see where this is all going".
This is scary. The LOC knows congress is selling us out, but they've been told to keep their big mouths shut.
Maybe you should ask the members of the Trusted Computing Group.
The answer to that would seem to be no, as the dmca only applies to copyrighted material. If the copyright is expired/voided, it would not apply.
This might prove an interesting way to legally crack drm as well...
1. copyright something, and apply drm.
2. renounce your copyright - transfer the material to the public domain.
3. don't remove the drm.
The drm may now be legally cracked, as there is no copyright on the protected material. The crack could legally be distributed as a way to access that public domain material.