Slashdot Log In
Libraries Say DRM May Harm Their Services
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Feb 03, 2006 09:29 AM
from the stop-with-the-restrictiveness-already dept.
from the stop-with-the-restrictiveness-already dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
News: Libraries Use DRM to Expire Audiobooks 524 comments
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."
[+]
News: German Library Allowed To Crack Copy Protection 277 comments
AlexanderT writes "The EU Directive 2001/29/EU (also known as the European Copyright Directive) has made it "a criminal offence to break or attempt to break the copy protection or access control systems on digital content such as music, videos, eBooks, and software".
Since today, at least in Germany there is one notable exception: The Deutsche Bibliothek, Germany's national library and bibliographic information center, has received a "license to copy", i.e. the official authorization to crack and duplicate DRM-protected e-books and other digital media such as CD-Audio and CD-Roms.
The Deutsche Bibliothek achieved an agreement with the German Federation of the Phonographic Industry and the German Booksellers and Publishers Association after it became obvious that copy protections would not only annoy teenage school boys, but also prohibit the library from fulling its legal mandate to collect, process and bibliographic index important German and German-language based works."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Well, duh (Score:4, Funny)
Article summary provided by the Department of Obviousness Department
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have the MP3 package check the system time every time you try to play it, and if the year is 20XX + 95, it allows playback. But, as anyone who's played Rise of the Triads knows, it takes only a simple DOS command to make I.P. Freely and the others play with santa hats on.
Of course, if the content providers decided to go through with this, they would insist on having each file "phone home" to an unimpeachable server to check on an official time before authorizing the unlock. But don't worry, I'm sure a backround process logging each and every DRM'd file you've opened on your PC won't end up being sold to recoup the costs of the system.
Parent
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
And it could be made illegal to use DRM at all, as I believe it should. If you want legal Copyright protection then your content should be copyable, otherwise it is like asking for a patent but keeping how your invention works a secret. Unrestrained DRM sacrifices our legitamite right to copy other peoples work.
Parent
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr. Tierney,
The battle over intellectual property laws has brought to light many issues of inequality in our society. Big corporate entities account for vast swaths of ownership of intellectual property, creating a dynamic of ever increasing inequality of information, where the interests of the individual are put at an inferior position to the interests of the corporation.
One thing that could be done to stop the spread of this inequality is to pass a law prohibiting the use of D
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Informative)
Though I suggest you paraphrase if you or anyone else chooses to contact your representative yourself. They tend not to appreciate form letters.
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Parent
Problems with Fair Use and libraries (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Problems with Fair Use and libraries (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory UK note (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Obligatory UK note (Score:3, Informative)
Sections 28-76 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [opsi.gov.uk] lists the exceptions to infringing acts laid out in section 16. In a nutshell, copyright is not infringed in instances of using the work for research, private study, for criticism, for review or for news reporting. There are also exceptions for educational and library use.
Also, there are some exceptions relating to computer pr
Re:Obligatory UK note (Score:3, Informative)
The US fair use and UK fair dealing provisions are broadly similar, but the US version is rather more generous in what it (theoretically, in light of subsequent legislation) allows. However, the way national reference libraries are supported, which is what we're talking about here, is covered by its own little bit of law in the UK, not under the general fair whatever exemptions that anyone can use. (IIRC, in the US the Library of Congress has similar rights, but you'd have to ask someone better informed abo
Re:Obligatory UK note (Score:3, Informative)
The same act, Part 5, Chapter 48, section 296ZE [jenkins-ip.com] "Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts", allows action to be taken where DRM blocks acts permitted under law.
Good points (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, not likely, but a guy can dream, can't he?
Re:Good points (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long term, the restrictions would not expire when a work went out of copyright, it said, and it may be impossible to trace the rights holders by that time.
"It is probable that no key would still exist to unlock the DRMs," Laca said. "For libraries this is serious.
So copyright law be damned. Slap some DRM on your work and it's yours for perpetuity, even after the copyright expires, simply by "losing" the key. Convenient.
Parent
Technology advances (Score:3, Insightful)
A better question might be, fifty years from now, will anyone have the technology to even access the works? Think how hard it is to play an eight-track, or even an old 45. If it's copy restricted, will anyone remember how
Re:Technology advances (Score:3, Interesting)
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 dom
Charlie Chaplin DVDs? (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
It's all about the POV of "rights" (Score:2)
About the British Library... (Score:5, Funny)
And the hackers save us? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
On top of that, non-slashdotters don't know and even care less than we.
Finally: even if everybody would boycott DRM enabled media, the distributors will blame piracy. It's a lose-lose situation in all cases.
Re:Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
If the content providers want to wrap their products in DRM, that's their own business. But if they do, then the law should side with the citizens exercising their fair use rights: such things as modchips, libdvdcss, or hacked ebook readers should be explicitly protected by law, rather than being banned as they are at present.
Parent
Mod Parent Up.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 person
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
What?
It's a right, specified in law. There aren't "levels" here, it's either a true or false value.
So, it's okay if Free Speech isn't easy, right?
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Informative)
(Not a librarian, but have an MLIS and have been advised by legal counsel.)
Libraries and Librarians (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Libraries and Librarians (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Libraries and Librarians (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Libraries and Librarians (Score:3, Insightful)
DRM needs to check-out (Score:2)
What does DRM stand for again?
Data-Retaining Miser? Data-Retention Misery? Data-Restraining Misanthrope?
Re:DRM needs to check-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Do your bit for information freedom.
DRM stands for Digital Restrictions Management.
What, you heard it was Digital Rights Management? No, no, no. The purpose of the technology is to take away rights, like the fair use right to copy to an ipod or a mix tape, and to impose restrictions, like how if your subscription to Napster lapses then all your music stops working. It's Digital Restrictions Management.
Use the phrase in your posts, in conversation with non-techies, on IRC. Whenever the subject arises. Spread the meme. Subvert the language. It's Digital Restrictions Management, because they want to Restrict you. They care nothing for your rights.
Parent
Sony Rootkits in Libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sony Rootkits in Libraries (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA laughs at Copyright end-dates (Score:5, Interesting)
All part of life in the behind-the-scenes world of technology standardisation.
Not an issue (Score:4, Funny)
The right to control material (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:The right to control material (Score:5, Interesting)
The society, with the help of the executive arm - the "Government" - grants temporary rights to help innovation so thus society in general.
That was the theory in the 18th century and it worked sort-of, but in today's world that theory breaks down because of new technologies and that because the content creators don't keep their end of the bargain. They don't contribute back to society as they should.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, its a simple choice:
You either adhere to the _spirit_ of the copyright and use the temporary timeframe given to you while you have "copyright" over something which after the required amount of time becomes public domain OR you are outside the scope of copyright and you receive NO LEGAL PROTECTION if someone else wants to do whatever he wants with the thing you "created".
Parent
Copyright Libraries (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists are protected, execs still get the most important part of their wet dream, and most importantly, the public gets it's dues.
This may be intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Public Domain? (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM and the Library of Congress (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:DRM and the Library of Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Every now and then I read these types of comments on this site and I wonder why those who are upset by what they hear do
DRM harms book sales, freedom helps them (Score:5, Informative)
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.
DMCA Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, it seems unlikely that there is anything out there - or likely to be - that couldn't be cracked. But here's a question: something only exists as a DRM protected file. Its copyright expires. The DMCA is still as it is today. Is it still illegal to crack the DRM on this file?
Re:DMCA Question (Score:3, Informative)
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
Getting Disneyed. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not much of a problem. As Disney has so carefully demonstrated, that will never, ever happen for any copyrighted work that has been published since 1928. The real problem however:
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
This will happen a lot sooner than the copyright will expire. Like in maybe 10 or 20 years. And not just that the software might not support old DRM formats (remember, they'll be producing new ones every 6 months because hackers will always find a way around them), but what about the hardware? Will it work in 15 years? Will someone be there to make replacement parts in 15 years? DRM is all about tying one electronic copy to one device at a time, whether it's a PDA-style book reader or a PC. But the whole point of electronic formats is reproducability so that you can prevent data loss (among other things).
The Disneys and Sonys of the world don't give a rat's ass about whether a historian can understand our culture (and by extension, their own) in a hundred or six hundred years. They care only whether or not they can make money this year.
Read Herring (Score:4, Insightful)
So the whole "what about when copyright expires" spiel is a read herring (pun intended).