Expect Resistance & Library Autonomous Zone

One of the problems that libraries will increasingly face as they accept digital content controlled by DRM (”digital rights management”) technologies is that these technologies allow content providers (e.g., publishers, distributors) to change the rules for access to that content at any time. Two recent articles address this issue and explain it. While Berlind does not like DRM and Ross does, both make essentially the same points about the technology. Interestingly, they also agree that one way to avoid having content controlled dynamically by the content provider is for the user (in our case, the library itself) to stop relying on online access and digital content that includes DRM locks that are updated online and rely instead on actual distribution of information that is not locked with DRM.

• Declaration of InDRMpendence, by David Berlind, Between the Lines, 9/30/2005

What you need to know is that DRM can be, and has proven to be, a Trojan horse. In a back and forth thread of e-mails, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s John Gilmore described to me how DRM technology basically allows those who sit at the controls of it to arbitrarily change the rules. For example, one day, with Apple’s iTunes, we were able to burn the same playlist as many as ten times. A day later, it was seven. Unlike before, when we could take our vinyl records and CDs and do pretty much anything we wanted with them (to facilitate our personal use) or even sell them (or will them to family members), the “R” in DRM is much less about what we have the right to do and more about the Restrictions that can be arbitrarily and remotely asserted over something we paid good money for. So far, the best suggestion I’ve heard to dodge the CRM bullet is seek used CDs. It may not be a la carte song buying. But it’s not a premium price for a bunch of music you may not want anyway.

• Here’s a surefire way to stifle innovation, By Patrick Ross, CNET News.com, October 6, 2005

Online music subscription services can experiment with the number of music players permitted, the number of computers allowed, whether the songs are “owned” or rented, etc., and can change those settings on the fly if market forces demand it. That’s far more difficult with physical media. The TPM (technical protection measures) being put into upcoming high-definition DVD formats, for example, likely will remain in place for years, if not for the entire duration of the format.

Power grab could split the Net, By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com, October 3, 2005.

This week’s column by McCullagh ask the
question “Will the U.N./Bush administration split the Net?”
In a worst case scenario, “we could end up with a Balkanized Internet in which the U.S. attempts to retain control of its root servers and a large portion of the world veers in an incompatible direction.”

McCullagh is no fan of the United Nations and doesn’t offer a solution, but
he does describe the problem of the “autocratic, bellicose Bush administration”
and the problems it is creating with its lack of dipolmacy.

For the first time in its history, the Internet is running a real risk of fracturing into multiple and perhaps even incompatible networks.

At a meeting in Geneva last week, the Bush administration objected to the idea of the United Nations running the top-level servers that direct traffic to the master databases of all domain names.

That’s not new, of course–the administration has been humming this tune since June. What’s changed in the last few months is the response from the rest of the world.

Instead of acquiescing to the Bush administration’s position, the European Union cried foul last week and embraced greater U.N. control. A spokesman said that the EU is “very firm on this position.”

By Tearing Open That Cardboard Box, Are You Also Signing on the Dotted Line? - By J. D. BIERSDORFER, New York Times, October 3, 2005

This article is about patented products and how companies (specifically Lexmark, the printer cartridge maker) are trying (and succeeding) to force limitations based on licensing.

I was thinking about this very issue last week as I attended the Web workshop entitled, “Shrink-wrap Licenses and Click-through Licenses: Why Should Information Professionals Care?” put on by the Special Libraries Association (SLA) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL). The seminar was largely a dud IMHO, because it simply discussed the different types of licenses that libraries deal with in order to access information. There was no discussion whatsoever regarding the larger issue for libraries.

Specifically, what’s the effect on libraries of information shifting from a copyright system to a licensing system? We used to have a fairly strong and solid base of first sale, public domain, and fair use on which to build our collections. Now however, more and more information from CDs to article databases is being licensed to libraries. Libraries are losing control of their collections and I don’t even hear a peep of concern.

This is not something that has just snuck up on libraries. We let this happen when we allowed publishers to start licensing access to article databases 20+ years ago instead of demanding to own the digital content.
Read the rest of this entry »