Libraries: No DRM!
May 13th, 2008 by Chris Lay
Wow! Not 24 hours after i write a paper about the RIAA and how DRM makes legal MP3 services a weak substitute for the illegal acquisition of music (for one of my library school classes, as a matter of fact), this white paper from DefectiveByDesign.org pops up in my GoogleReader!
“We call upon public libraries around the world to remove the unethical Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technologies currently locking down many of their digital collections. DRM compromises public trust for the sake of providing limited access to popular works to some in the short-term. As concerned patrons, we request that libraries immediately establish policies against the use of DRM technologies.
DRM requires users to cede control of their computers to third-party corporations, so they can restrict when and how they may access “checked out” books or audio files. This is an inappropriate and unethical requirement for a public library to impose on its patrons. The notion of checking something out is based on physical scarcity — to be manufacturing scarcity where none exists is entirely contrary to a library’s mission.
Libraries that use DRM are submitting patrons to the onerous and unethical legal terms involved with purchasing, installing, and using software such as Microsoft Windows and the Windows Media Player. In the case of Microsoft Windows, this entails agreeing to terms that allow Microsoft to delete software and data that the user legally owns and has created or installed on their own machines. For a library to require their patrons to agree to such End User License Agreements as a prerequisite for gaining access to its collection is an injustice.
These software requirements drive the sales of DRM technology vendors, such as Microsoft and OverDrive, providing an incentive for patrons to discontinue using software and materials that do not impose DRM. The common argument that DRM and proprietary software are necessary because publishers require them becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the library is using its own market power to encourage their use, hurting the emergence of competing alternatives in the process.
Random House, the largest publisher of eBooks and audio books worldwide, recently announced its decision to drop DRM from the vast majority of its catalog. Random House made this decision after doing a study which found zero cases of DRM-free works being shared illegally. They found that it was ONLY the DRMed titles that were being shared.
The fear, uncertainty, and doubt used by the software industry to convince publishers and distributors to use DRM has blindsided the public and institutions of public trust. Little consideration has been given to the ethical and long-term implications of accepting and encouraging the use of DRM. Defending the public interest means thwarting DRM.
For these reasons, we ask that libraries immediately embargo the use of DRM on their collections and establish formal policies against it. There are undoubtedly many challenges facing libraries today that need to be considered, but few can be as timely or as important as the way the library defines itself and its role in our digital age.”
Personally, I’m not sure about how libraries, especially academic ones, are going to react to this proposed ‘embargo.’ Kicking DRM to the curb is an idea that I agree with wholeheartedly, but many of the licensed resources such as Scholarly Journals, have a pretty vivid history of inflexibility in regards to DRM as a means of protecting their products.
This is definitely something to keep an eye on in the very near future, as well as a topic that Students for Free Culture might take a public stance on. I’ll post whatever I find that’s of interest!
PS: Check the pic of Gavin I nicked from Wikipedia’s DRM page…
~Excelsior!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Hey there, thanks for cross-posting the letter. Would be great to let people know that it is an open letter that we are encouraging people to sign :-)
-Josh
July 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings.
To provide useful information, please click to view
Bose headphones
ghd Hair Straightener
Women is Dakota
Sundance UGG Boots
Thank you!
November 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I’m a bit late, but you seem to misunderstand how libraries go about acquiring the rights to materials.
Libraries still need to pay for materials in their collections. There isn’t an absence of scarcity as you suggest in this posting, digitalization has actually increased the scarcity of a very important thing called money. Establishing the rights to digitally provide access to materials that aren’t open works is extremely costly, and those costs are rising as publishers link more digital works into packages so that you can’t buy individual works or databases.
I understand your concern of the invasion of privacy resulting from DRM technology venders impose, but you are misinterpreting the way this market works. Your proposal serves only to weaken the position of the library. Libraries don’t hold as much financial buying power over publishers as you seem to believe they hold. Because libraries don’t increase publishers sales in any direct way, no profitable organization is going to be concerned about the embargo of an entity that is designed to provide free access to the materials they are attempting to profit from.