DRM - Libraries Get Wise [IP Bytes #6]

(Original image from HWSW)

Last week I ventured to the public library in my new town. I have always had a special place in my heart for libraries (how appropriate today on Valentine's Day). This likely stems from my love of books (I even love the way they smell when they are new), but there is something else about a place that trusts the local citizenry with its' property and provides them with a wealth of knowledge and media all free for the borrowing. In todays' digital world of instant gratification, short attention spans and gigarage storage capabilities, we seem to be in a mode of owning a piece of everything (even if it is not ours to own). Take a look at the popularity of Napster, Grokster or LimeWire and the issues of digital rights management inevitably rear their contraversial head.

At one end of the spectrum there are the libertarians that believe everything should be available and that the integrity of creation is stimulated by a population that has access and preservation rights to all content. Websites like Creative Commons and YouTube are prime examples of those who place a premium on the free transferability of content. Then you have the other camp that believes artists (and those that produce/promote them) should be compensated for their work right now, that the community benefits more from stimulating originality rather than availability. This side includes Itunes and friends, who charge per download, keeping tight control over what gets put where. Wherever you fall in the spectrum, it cannot be denied that digital rights management will play a large role in how we own and receive information in the future.

As libraries are a large repository for content, they need to take measures in preventing infringment. One such measure that I encountered was a copy protection label on the Miles Davis CD that I borrowed. This label prevented me from even playing the CD on my laptop. I could only listen to the music on my stereo. This surprised and disappointed me, because I mainly wanted to listen to the jazz while I did work on my laptop in my various coffee shop haunts and other places. The copy protection label thus limited my freedom, because I could not copy the music to my hard drive to listen to it anywhere other than my apartment.

On Wikipedia, the term refered to is "copy protection" or prevention: "any technical measure designed to prevent duplication of information." This definition is included under the more general term "digitial rights management." Supporters of DRM would say that such a label is beneficial in doing what it did. Since I only borrowed the CD from a library I only have limited rights associated with it. The label only actualized these limited rights. Still, I couldn't help but think of two considerations that against such a limited rights theory.

First is the notion of autonomy. Were this a book of paper and print I would arguably have limited rights associated to it that come with the borrowing. At the same time, however, I am presented with the option of engaging in fair uses of that book in copying certain pages or excerpts to take with me, should I chose to. This could be a real benefit in the case of a large and heavy hardcover book that I might not want to carry around with me. Now, one can make the argument that the portability of the book is analogous to the portability of the CD and thus the same limited rights are present in both. I think that such an argument is weakened by the fact that I don't need a stero or other third party device to disseminate the content of the book (unless you count my reading glasses, which are also portable).

The notion of portability (which could also be solved by supporters of DRM by saying that I could use a discman), leads to the second point to consider: space-shifting. Space-shifting occurs when a user merely makes a copy of music she already owns "in order to render portable...those files that already reside on a user's hard drive...Such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use." A&M Records v. Napster, 299 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). The court in Napster cited to RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Sys. ("RIO"), which allowed users to download content from their computers to MP3 players. The majority distinguished the Rio case and denied Napster the space-shifting argument because their software permitted millions of users to simultaneously simulate copies beyond their limited rights and distribute them freely to the public. Permissible space-shifting (and its' predecessor "time-shifting" from Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios Inc.) expose content only to the original user who has obtained limited permissions in the work.

(Original image from: Infoworld)

The question of whether the limited rights that I acquire as a borrower of content should be closer aligned to Rio or Napster is not an issue that I am aware of has been answered. As a matter of self-help and avoidance, it seems the library has made my choice for me. I could not violate the copyright even if I wanted to - or could I? True, if I physically remove the protection label I am on the hook to the library for the cost of the media, however, from a content libertarian standpoint I could circumvent the protection measure with a little innovation. Such measures would put me at risk of violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and I don't mean to say that I tried them. What I am saying is that one would think that limited rights permitted to me by the library by virtue of their civic trust in me over the content I borrow should be enough to permit me the courtesy of space-shifting. To do the opposite perhaps speaks of the respect that is expected of me as an autonomous adult dealing with the library.

In closing I would like to point out an argument made by Dan Bricklin on his website for anti-copy protection. In his article, Copy Protection Robs the Future he says:

"I believe that copy protection will break the chain necessary to preserve creative works. It will make them readable for a limited period of time and not be able to be moved ahead as media deteriorates or technologies change. Only those works that are thought to be profitable at any given time will be preserved by their "owners" (if they are still in business). We know from history that what's popular at any given time is no certain indication of what will be valuable in the future. Without not-copy protected "originals", archivists, collectors, and preservers will be unable to maintain them the way they would if they weren't protected. (Many of these preservers ignore fashion as they do their job, because they see their role as preservers not filters.) We won't even be able to read media in obsolete formats, because the specifications of those formats will not be available."

His argument is that the current trend of copy-protection frenzy will benefit monetary reward in the short-run, but hurt the preservation of works in the long run. I do not know how well this argument relates to the limited rights of borrowers to the library, but I liked his conception of arguing for a free flow of information and copying, especially in the realm of works that may have little popular or monetary interest at the current time. It is possible that individuals might preserve such works, while institutions or commercial ventures may not.