Media

The role of digital rights management systems (DRMS) is a contentious issue in libraries. On the one hand, they are a useful technical tool: they protect copyright to digital media and facilitate new forms of lending; on the other, they restrict the use of and access to information. We offer four expert opinions on this controversial subject.

Frank Daniel, Cologne City Library

In many places nowadays, library users can search the catalogues, manage their user account, reserve items and apply for inter-library loans without moving from their desks. They can access digitalised library stocks of historical interest as well as professional databases, for which the library pays the licence fees. Up to now, however, the main business of libraries – namely lending out high-quality products from publishers – has been excluded from the digital process. Yet as the loans and user figures everywhere show, despite the Internet, the interest in this type of content remains high. In view of changing media usage behaviour, one option is therefore for libraries to make these high-quality publications available on the Internet as well.

The word "loan" means providing someone with an item for their own use for a limited period of time. With digital media, special protection is required to ensure that the file in question is not transferred permanently to the user's own system. It goes without saying that the publishing houses would not provide their content to any library without such protection. The use of DRM technologies allows us to offer our members e-books and digitalised audio books, music, videos, magazines and journals for download; the member can then use these items offline on their own computer until the end of the agreed loan period. Once the loan period has expired, access to the file is automatically denied, which means that the user cannot open the file. It is deleted from their system and the medium is then available for the next customer. In the Internet age, this is an important service in safeguarding customer loyalty.

Christian Hasiewicz, Libraries Director, DiViBib GmbH

On the one hand, copy and DRM protection undoubtedly leads to a curtailment of freedom of information, in that the use of such content requires more complex or more specific hard- and software systems which would not be necessary if these protection mechanisms were not in place. That is why, in digital media retail, the trend is to dispense with DRM completely. This approach may be all well and good in a sales environment, but it is not necessarily right for public libraries. Here, DRM is essential to ensure that libraries can extend their core business – namely to provide high-quality content through temporary loans – to digital media as well.

On the other hand, DRM allows digital content to be loaned to the library user for a limited period. If the library did not impose a time limit, it would in effect be gifting the content to the user, which would only be possible if it had unlimited budgetary resources available – and clearly, that is not the case with public libraries.

The second argument in favour of DRM is that without copy protection, no publisher would make its content available to public libraries. In the digital arena – unlike the situation with physical media – content can be copied on an unlimited basis without any loss of quality. Both in theory and in practice, a single licence for one medium would be sufficient to cover Germany's entire demand for the title concerned. In some ways, that is an attractive prospect, but it is tantamount to a blank cheque: content providers – in other words, authors and publishers – have a justified interest in financial remuneration and protection of their rights. Without them, the content providers are very unlikely to commit to the digital sector. The only conceivable alternative is some kind of "content flat-rate", but here too, it is of course essential to clarify how this would be paid to the copyright holders.

Under these circumstances, DRM is essential to enable public libraries to make available and lend out digital content to their customers. To that extent, the price payable for the use of DRM, in terms of freedom of information, is more than offset by the greater accessibility of content for the general public and library users through a service such as Onleihe ('Onloan').

Dr Hannelore Vogt, Head of Würzburg City Library

Digital rights management systems do not impinge on freedom of information, in my view – the media content is not changed or censored. There is not really any connection between DRM and freedom of information. DRM mainly protects copyright. Admittedly, it makes usage more difficult: for example, audio books can only be transferred to an MP3 player by syncing in Windows Media Player, and not all MP3 players are DRM-compatible … which is why the major music labels are now offering their downloads DRM-free.

The major difference compared with the commercial providers, which are abandoning DRM entirely, is that libraries lend out media. DRM is essential for a loans system – for example, DRM is what makes the return-by date effective. And above all, without DRM, there isn't a single publisher which would be willing to make a single page available for loan! The commercial providers don't have to worry whether the media are returned. But even they do not dispense with protection entirely – as a rule, digital watermarks are embedded into digital content to track whether any abuse has taken place.

Professor Stephan Büttner, Potsdam University of Applied Sciences

The fundamental starting point for science and research is free and fair access to knowledge. Until now, in the traditional print world, this has been guaranteed by the "fair use" provisions of copyright. These rules were well-established and accepted by the various actors for hundreds of years.

Digital rights management (DRM) has been an extremely controversial issue for many years.

Current trends show some worrying tendencies. Let me give you two examples:

1. With the new copyright laws, especially the second basket, the legislation which has entered into force is inimical to science and solely benefits the provider/utiliser. Some people are describing it as a "basket case for science". In theory, libraries are now supposed to negotiate their own terms with the publishers, but this simply shows how removed law-makers are from reality.
2. In 2007, some public libraries began to offer a 24/7 service – in other words, a service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This would be a very welcome initiative if only the underlying concept were sound. In fact, the underlying "Onloan" concept is based entirely on DRM. It is anachronistic in that it replicates the characteristics of print media in digital media and also excludes non-Windows users. This is no longer tolerable and is incompatible with free access to information.

DRM systems have been deployed in the music industry too, but they are now being taken off the market. If the publishing industry continues to rely on restrictive DRM concepts and makes the mistake of fundamentally mistrusting the customers, libraries and researchers, open access will be more important than ever.