I heard it at CiL 2008 and have heard it talked about on blogs. There seems to be and obsession with DRM (Digital Rights Management) with many librarians and with some of the general public. Since I come from a business background I don’t quite understand all the huff amongst librarians. Following is a reply I made to a post on another blog regarding DRM that kind of encapsulates my current thoughts on the issue:
The above comments offer great insights into the whole libraries and DRM issue, but I have a little bit to add, even though I am a public librarian.
Many academic institutions are moving towards a more open standard, which I fully applaud. Harvard Law School is an example in the academic realm that is starting to use CC to open up their materials to a wider public and improve the dissemination of knowledge. But in my humble opinion, academia and the “real” world should not be lumped together.
When discussing DRM and who is pushing it, the finger can not just be pointed at the publishers. Any real discussion must include the authors of the materials. If authors where interested in producing works truly free of any form of DRM, then they would not be sending their works to the publishers in the first place. Why bother? Just type it up in your favorite word processor, attach a CC license to, make it a PDF file and put it online. Done no DRM!
But the reality, as we have all heard before, is that self publishing CC content is not the way to get your books into libraries or make a decent living. The author – publisher relationship is a financial one and is not generally based on altruism. I seriously doubt that you would find one bestselling author today that would have rather been self published into obscurity and the poor house.
Authors need to be monetarily rewarded for their hard work. They to have families to feed and bills to pay just like you and me. To imagine a totally DRM free world is simply unrealistic. Would you go to work tomorrow and every day for the rest of your life for free? I sure wouldn’t.
I welcome you thoughts and opinions on this issue and or my response.
Posted on librarian in black 5/18/08
I understand why you leap to the equation of DRM and working for free, but it really is a leap. People make money on music and software and other things that are sold without DRM. Some people, like Jonathan Coulton and Cory Doctorow and Jason Scottseem to do OK for themselves even while putting CC licenses on their creative works.
I also think that DRM mostly just inconveniences people who want to do relatively innocuous and legal things, like watch a DVD on a Linux machine or move iTunes Music Store purchases from one computer to another. There is DRM on just about every commercial DVD, but I believe it is still easy to find torrents of major motion pictures for those who want to get something for nothing.
So I think you need to separate out some of these ideas if you want to have this conversation.
Steve, thanks for you comment!
From my point of view many of the points that you make are not really related to the to have or not to have DRM issue, but to its’ current level or lack of functionality (read standards) and transferability. I would heartily agree that the current generation of DRM is a real pain in the ass, but that does not negate the argument for having DRM at all. And just to let the world know Overdrive’s DRM drives me nuts!
I did a quick check in my consortium’s online catalog (30+ libraries) and fond several titles all published by Cory Doctorow. Interestingly enough several of these where published by major publishing houses and none of them listed the author as the publisher. 2007 was the most recent pub date, from what was apparently a smaller publishing house. I also noted that Jonathan Coulton also provides his music through iTunes. So you might say that these two individuals you site do not have entirely clean hands.
Do I think that self publishing and making content free to download has potential? Yes I do! Do I think that a vast majority of authors need publishers and other entities that attach nasty DRM to their products? Yes I do. You can find both successes and failure on both ends of the spectrum.
Still does not change my fundamental point from the way I see it.
Again thanks for the comment.
Anyone else?
DRM isn’t great for libraries or consumers and not because authors/musicians shouldn’t be paid.
There are laws for copyright and payment.
And then there harmful mechanisms for implementing controls some of which are better than others. DRM so far has been a crippling technology – often tied to a particular device, limiting the “owner” from porting their own music from one place to another. This already happenning.
With a print book, I can lend it to a friend (I’m not suggesting unlimited downloading) but with a digital book, I can’t. I’m not even so concerned about that, but moving it from one of my devices to another.
Imagine trying to provide access to an electronic collection of books over 3 decades with dozens of DRM implementations tied to who knows how many devices. This is not in the public interest.
I think these tw0 posts sum it up for me:
The Day the Music Died
“So what happens on August 31, 2008? On that day, Microsoft will turn off the servers that they maintain for the sole purpose of validating that the songs that people have already “purchased” through MSN Music are still theirs to play. Those people (hereafter “the victims”) will not notice the change right away. The victims will only notice it when they purchase a new computer, or when they upgrade the operating system on their current computer, … the Microsoft music player running on the victim’s PC (like iTunes, but all Microsoft-y instead of Apple-y) will make a call to Microsoft’s validation servers to verify that the music files were legitimately purchased. This call will fail, since the servers are not responding, since Microsoft has intentionally turned them off.”
Statements by the Canadian Music Creators Coalition whose members include BareNaked Ladies and other well-known and lesser known Canadian musicians and groups.
“Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the
distribution, use and enjoyment of music, let alone laws that would prohibit
circumvention of such technological measures. Digital locks, and laws protecting
them, are risky and counterproductive.
Most Canadian labels do not use digital locks when distributing artists’ music.
However, some labels, particularly major foreign labels, wish to increase their
control over Canadian artists and music consumers. Artists themselves are given
little or no choice over the use of digital locks by labels. If given a choice, most
artists would rather allow consumers the flexibility to determine how and when
they enjoy the music they buy.”
Thank you for your contribution Darlene!
Again many of the points you mention relate to the implementation of DRM. I totally agree that there are many issue, such as the Microsoft one pointed out in your comment. These issues need to be addressed and if I was a Microsoft customer, I would definitely be thinking class action about now.
Yes there are copyright laws, but enforcement of those laws are near impossible and is often seen as too intrusive. Would you rather have DRM or a federally mandated spyware program on your personal computers and devices to enforce copyright?
Placing DRM on purchased products goes against my grain, but on “loaned” products, I still have great sympathy for it. As for artists really prefering there not to be DRM, well that is their choice. If the do not want to have DRM placed on their music, then they can find a different label or self publish. But to expect the record label or publisher to not try and protect their investment is not realistic.
I still believe that DRM is not perfect and may never be so, but you have not convinced me to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Again, thanks for your comment.
Are libraries valuable to society? If you think they are, and given that the most basic business model for libraries is sharing information, then things that prevent such sharing are not good. Certainly one can imagine a DRM scheme that included a blanket exception for libraries, but then you can also imagine three impossible things
Then, of course, there is the fundamental change in what access to information entails. The model has been that you purchase something, and part of what you gain through purchase is the right to control how you personally use that information. Witn DRM the model changes to leasing the information, and what rights you get with that lease are totally controlled by the provider of the information you “signed” the DRM contract with. This is a huge change, and one that has at least some possibility to hamper innovation in the future.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Hoggishly.