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.
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 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.
In recent years, I've read a number of comments from people in the publishing industry that mention a statistic: The average published book is read by four people. The contexts of the quote is usually that this is considered a problem, and Something Should Be Done About It.
;-)
One way to understand this is to think of the books that you own. How many of your books have been read by three or more other people? Probably none, right? So where does this supposed average of four come from? Right again - libraries. The publishing industry generally considers libraries to be a serious problem. Libraries pay for a book only once, and then they let anyone read the book. All those readers should have bought their own copy. If publishers can make this happen, they think it will quadruple their income.
One of the things going on with DRM is that publishers see a solution to their problem, in the form of software that will prevent anyone other than the purchaser from reading a book. The intent is to prevent public libraries from doing what they're doing. They're also looking at the possibility of making you pay a second time if you want to reread a book.
Most publishers aren't in business to educate their readers or to contribute to our culture. They are in business to make money. If they can't make money from a book, they have no reason to let you read it. They certainly don't want you to read a book for free.
So if you think libraries are an important part of our culture, you should also be thinking about ways to preserve public access to their content. Publishers think they will soon be able to end such public access. They'll probably succeed, unless steps are taken to preserve access.
(Of course, here in the US, most of the population hasn't been inside a library in years.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
It's not obvious at all. DRM systems don't turn themselves off upon copyright expiry, but they could do so. They could be legally required to do so, and it could be illegal to use any DRM system that continued to prevent copying beyond the copyright expiry date, if our legislatures weren't in the pockets of the big media companies.
One of the problems with fair use in the United States is that it's generally not considered a "right" per se. Most choose to look at it as an affirmative defense- that is, something brought up when you're accused of copyright infringement. It's all about the framing used to determine who has the burden of proof. If it's a right, then the people who are trying to affect your rights have the burden of proof. If it's a defense, then you have to prove that you weren't infringing copyright. The law itself mentions neither rights nor defenses- it just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.
Librarians are great allies to intellectual freedom issues, including those involving DRM. Look at the briefs that the American Library Association has filed with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Many librarians are also quite knowledgable about technology-related issues, as well as fun subjects like copyright.
Libraries have it rough with the increasing prevalence of electronic journals and DRM technologies. Even with material that is accessed online, there's a good chance that once the library stops paying for access, the patrons lose access to that materials- something that never happened with print journals. DRM and licensing are currently putting libraries between a rock and a hard place.
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