In the interest of fairness, I decided to post a few links from libraries, librarians, and library associations that are against DRM in libraries.
I’m trying to be magnanimous, dammit.
- American Library Association statement on DRM: “For libraries, DRM technologies can additionally impact first-sale, preservation activities, and institute pay-per-use pricing.”
- Association of American Universities: (PDF)Â “The Higher Education Associations and Library Associations are aware that certain industry activities have been undertaken to identify possible technological protection measures for certain mass audiovisual media, such as broadcast television, cable television and packaged movies. These activities have been led by motion picture studios, consumer electronics companies, and IT companies, and have not been directed to or acknowledged the educational needs of libraries and academic institutions. Further, the group levies a charge for participation and the activities are conducted in a manner that makes it impractical for substantial participation by nonprofit educational institutions and libraries.”
- Connecticut Digital Library: “Fair use allowed libraries to exist. In the new world, fair use doesn’t seem to protect us. We are unable to purchase permanent collections, only transient access. Who controls the access at all times? the database or ebook vendors… It’s as though the publishers set up camp in our libraries and made sure that everyone who came to borrow books from us was - to their eyes - using the items appropriately (that they were residents of our town, etc., etc.). And we’re facilitating this by agreeing to the terms - not that we have a choice, but maybe we should be a little more vocal about protecting our readers’ rights and a little less concerned about protecting the vendors’ rights.”
And while it’s not a total refutation of DRM in libraries, I’d like to point you to this comment from Scott Colson, Applications Manager at the Boston Public Library:
I think, too, that we’re coming at the role of libraries from different directions. Our goal is to increase access to content, not to change the publishing industry. Our focus is on the user — and I anticipate your objection — so why would we not offer a service that the majority of our patrons can use? Discontinuing the service doesn’t improve any of our other services. And as other bloggers have pointed out, eliminating DRM from our library would also mean the exclusion of standard formats like DVDs.
Overdrive, the leading vendor of DRM library content, has announced that they will be making content available on DRM-free MP3s in the coming months. I know librarians who have complained long and hard about the limitations that DRM content places on their ability to archive library content, and while this move is but a small step in the right direction, it is still as step in the right direction.
But I still say that the FSF is using the wrong whetstone to grind their ax against.
