We dream of a world with free access to content. In the meantime, there's DRM.

Digital Rights Management, aka DRM. Also known as “Digital Restrictions Management,” “Despicable Rights Meddling,” or even “Delirious Righteous Morons” by some, the technology and its controversial application of controlling digital content has sparked an escalating battle over copyright protection and fair use. The stakes are huge for content producers and consumers, and, yes, libraries, too. Simply stated, DRM is a technology that allows copyright owners to regulate and manage their content when it is disseminated in a digital format, and it’s the reason that some patrons cannot access some of the downloadable digital content that libraries provide. Consider this: I can buy a book and take it anywhere I want. I can read it in my house, my office, an airplane, or in the European hotel I’m staying in during my well-deserved vacation. When I’m done reading it, I can sell the book, give it to a friend, or donate it to my library. I cannot do the same thing with ebooks, software, digital music, or video because of DRM. In the midst are major recording labels, college students, and techno activists—depicted in mainstream media as major players in the controversy—yet so, too, are libraries, as the content we purchase is increasingly affected by Digital Rights Management. Our users, frustrated by this technology, have voiced their dismay to us, and rightly so. If any institution should be providing content that is usable by anyone, anywhere, it should be the library. In the past, copyright owners of printed books didn’t really worry about people reproducing their works instead of buying them. There was copyright law, and people were expected to adhere to it. But when the average home computer made ripping music a snap and digital content (movies, software, and ebooks) evolved into ubiquity, things got problematic. As an example, let’s take a piece of music, “Imagine” by John Lennon. Lennon’s estate and his record company own the original creative content of that song. The rights owners want to be compensated for that content, rather than give it away for free. So the rights owners sell a physical package, like CDs, which contain “Imagine” as a file. The CDs may be labeled with warnings about copyright law, but the files themselves, the CDAs (CD Audio), contain no DRM. The rights owners also sell a digital version of “Imagine” as a file via the online retailer iTunes. This file is not a simple sound file (as on the CD), but rather another file type, in this case, AAC (advanced audio coding). Along with the song, this file type carries a snippet of DRM code. Therein lies the inequity. If you buy a physical version of a song or movie, you are warned about the law, but generally trusted to follow it. If you buy a digital version, however, the DRM code forces compliance. DRM makes it illegal for the owner of that CD to use that content on more than one device (which you should be legally allowed to do). Moreover, the owner cannot make a backup copy of the content for his or her own use (which you should also be legally allowed to do). And woe to anyone who helps you to do either of the above, as that’s also breaking the law. Why should libraries care about Digital Rights Management? Here are three main reasons: Device compatibility. Libraries should always provide content that offers device compatibility for all users. In other words, it shouldn’t matter what device you choose to buy, the library’s content should always work on it. Libraries are now being criticized for purchasing content (ebooks, video, and music) that’s only accessible on devices installed with Microsoft software. But no provider that sells to libraries offers a collection of downloadable audiobooks, video, or music that works with Apple products. Even then, Apple-compatible econtent would, in all likelihood, only function on Apple devices and with Apple software. As a result, the library would have to make some tough financial choices: do we buy the product that works for PCs or the one that works for Macs? The ideal scenario is to standardize audio DRM or get rid of it altogether, so that everyone can get along with everyone else and consumers and libraries are not forced to make this ridiculous decision. DRM roadblocks. DRM presents a hurdle for library users. For one, DRM-protected content often requires multiple steps to access, as well as the installation of new software, updating of licenses, and new accounts and passwords. The auto-expiration of DRM-protected content for libraries (e.g., after a three-week check-out period) can malfunction and shut out a user who is entitled to full access. Inconsistent terms of use for digital versus print library materials also frustrate library users. The result? Bad customer service. One Chicago Public Library user posted a comment on my blog stating that (s)he had tried to incorporate a clip of a downloadable audiobook into an author presentation she was creating on her Mac, but could not because the digital file was Windows-only. If she had checked out the CD version of the same audiobook, she could have ripped it to her Mac and used the clip legally, according to fair-use guidelines. DRM can also be a problem for users with disabilities. TAP Information Services, a library consulting firm, conducted an accessibility study of Recorded Books, a subsidiary of NetLibrary. TAP found that DRM hindered access by a large portion of the study participants, who had visual and physical impairments. With problems like these, users may give up on econtent and, sometimes, the library altogether. Archival issues. Econtent that is protected by a “key,” a particular device or piece of software necessary to access it is also problematic. The key can be lost or the device may become obsolete. Then the software may not run, because the compatible device no longer exists. These long-term archival issues will affect all libraries. At the speed with which technology changes, material created today may become inaccessible in a decade. Can you imagine if all of the library’s physical books were unreadable after 10 years? DRM has been a frequent topic in the news. There’s a current lawsuit pending in France over Apple’s use of DRM, which prevents iTunes content from playing on any other device and non-iTunes DRM-affected content from playing on the iPod. In February 2007, Apple CEO Steve Jobs wrote a memo, “Thoughts on Music,” in which he outlined his tri-fold vision for the future: everyone having their own DRM scheme, Apple licensing its DRM scheme to others, or removing DRM altogether. Jobs was widely criticized for missing a vital fourth option, which is for various DRM-system creators to collaboratively produce a nonproprietary DRM schema that will satisfy everyone involved—including book and music publishers. In March, music publisher EMI partnered with Apple to offer all of its songs (except for Beatles tunes) in two formats: one that is lower quality and has DRM and one that is 30 percent more expensive, higher quality, and without DRM. Requiring users to pay a premium for a quality file that will play on any device has critics crying foul. People want unencumbered access to content. We don’t want to have to register it on one particular device. Most of us are using more than one device in our lives—be it work vs. home, portable vs. desktop. We don’t want it to auto-encrypt (encrypt the data in the file so it’s unreadable) after a set amount of time. We want to be able to share things with friends—just like we could do with physical media. Libraries must be part of the solution here, not the problem. With our current econtent models, we’re coming down on the wrong side of this debate—not the side of content delivery, accessibility, and customer service, like we should. Publishing companies like Springer and BWI are offering ebooks free of DRM. This is the model we should be promoting and demanding from all vendors. Otherwise we will continue to limit content to a select group of our users, and that select group will continue to get smaller as DRM becomes increasingly restrictive.  

---

Author Information

Sarah Houghton-Jan is information and Web services manager for the San Mateo County (CA) Library and author of the blog LibrarianInBlack.