Responses to
Letter to the Boston Public Library
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/08/1739235.shtml
#News for nerds, stuff that matters Search Slashdot
Slashdot RSS
Slashdot
News for nerds, stuff that matters
Libraries Defend Open Access |
116 comments
Display Options
Threshold:
[-1: 116 comments][Nested.....][Oldest First.........
........] Change Reply
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by
whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them
in any way.
(1) | 2
*
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:4, Interesting)
by dsaklad (162420) on Sunday September 09,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20527215)
(http://zork.net/~dsaklad)
Our libraries come up short with regard to
overdrive...
Letter to the Boston Public Library
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html
[fsf.org]
* Send this page to somebody
To the Management of the Boston Public Library,
Don Saklad forwarded me your message which
re****ts that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright
protection technology" made by Microsoft.
The technology in question is an example of
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology
designed to restrict the public. Describing it as
"copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a
mechanism intended to deny the public the
exercise of those rights which copyright law has
not yet denied them.
The use of that format for distributing books is
not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a
choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be
changed, and that is the case here. I
respectfully submit that the Boston Public
Library has a responsibility to refuse to
distribute anything in this format, even if it
seems "convenient" to some in the short term.
By making the choice to use this format, the
Boston Public Library gives additional power to a
cor****ation already twice convicted of unfair
competition.
This choice excludes more than just Macintosh
users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an
operating system made up of free/libre software,
are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are
locked up with Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM), it is illegal in the US to release
free/libre software capable of reading these
audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of
arrangement to include capable software in MacOS
(which is, itself, non-free software for which
users cannot get source code). But we in the free
software community will never be allowed to
provide software to play them, unless laws are
changed.
There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The
tendency of digitalization is to convert public
libraries into retail stores for vendors of
digital works. The choice to distribute
information in a secret format--information
designed to eva****ate and become unreadable--is
the antithesis of the spirit of the public
library. Libraries which participate in this have
lost their hearts.
I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to
terminate its association with OverDrive Audio
Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be
agents for the propagation of Digital
Restrictions Management.
Sincerely
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
MacArthur Fellow
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html
[fsf.org]
[ Reply to This ]
+
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:5, Interesting)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday September 09,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20528063)
I have a response to this. Instead of
haranguing the libraries, bug the hell out
of the publishers. As it stands there are
currently ZERO library vendors that offer
eAudiobook downloads that are compatible
with Mac or GNU/Linux because of the DRM on
the files. This is certainly NOT the choice
of the libraries.
I'm a librarian for a public library in
Pittsburgh. We get requests all the time for
downloadable audiobooks. We got requests
before we had any options, and we get them
now that we offer both OverDrive and
Netlibrary downloads. At least OverDrive has
the option to (in some cases, if the
publisher has allowed it) burn the book to
CD. After that, you can then im****t it to
iTunes and transfer it over to your iPod.
It's stupid clunky and you're better off
just getting the CDs in the first place to
listen that way, but it can be done and
OverDrive's CEO has been known to tell
people that.
Now, here's the question from the library's
point of view. Is it better to not offer ANY
eAudiobooks at all, despite the many
requests for them, than to offer ones that
can only be used by those with the dominant
operating system? (We have to make the same
decision with video games, too. What formats
do we buy in?) With all due respect to the
parent poster and to Mr. Stallman, my job is
not to take a stand on DRM. It's to provide
materials to the public in the formats they
want, and that means that in some cases,
like it or not, we're going to decide to
offer eAudiobooks that cannot be used by all
computer users. Just as DVDs cannot be
watched by VCR owners, and CDs cannot be
listened to by those with merely a tape
deck, and Mac software cannot be run on a
Windows machine. We're going to have to
judiciously ap****tion an appropriate part of
the budget according to demand for the
items.
Now, would libraries love to change this?
Yes. I personally have a list of free,
non-DRM sites that allow you to download
eAudiobooks for free that I hand out along
with instructions on how the
library-accessible eAudiobooks work. The
problem is that those sites (such as
Librivox [librivox.org] or AudiobooksForFree
[audiobooksforfree.com]) don't offer Janet
Evanovich or John Patterson or the other
bestsellers. They're generally things in the
public domain (obviously), and our patrons
usually want newer items.
Every chance I get, I complain to our
Recorded Books representative (who works
with Netlibrary) about the DRM limitations
and make the case that should another
company come along that offers downloads
without DRM, we're gone to them no matter
the cost. The libraries that have told
OverDrive to buzz off in the past have just
gotten shrugs. It doesn't change anything.
(This includes the library located right
next to Apple Headquarters, by the way. They
finally gave in to demand.)
This is something that gets discussed all
the time amongst librarians and on library
blogs. My feeling is that complaining to the
libraries is useless. We agree with you in
spirit, but in practice, we're going to
offer the product because our patrons want
it. What we WILL sup****t you in is
complaining to the companies themselves, and
in pu****ng the publishers to reach for a
broader market. Instead of writing letters
to libraries, spend your time convincing the
publishers that they'll have wider
listener****p (without losing sales) if they
hit the non-DRM market and convincing
OverDrive and Netlibrary to begin offering
other options than the protected WMA files.
From OverDrive's Web site, here's their
contact information:
OverDrive, Inc.
Valley Tech Center - Suite N
8555 Sweet Valley Drive
Cleveland, OH 44125 USA
Phone: (216) 573-6886
Fax: (216) 573-6888
Email: info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And from NetLibrary's Web site:
NetLibrary Division Office
4888 Pearl East Circle, Ste. 103
Boulder, CO 80301
USA
info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or, since NetLibrary is a division of OCLC:
Headquarters
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Frantz Road
Dublin, OH 43017-3395
USA
oclc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hope this helps you look at the issue from
another point of view, and that in a few
years we can cheer the end of DRM in
libraries together.
Cheers,
shalla
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
shalla (Score:5)
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation +3
30% Interesting
40% Insightful
30% Informative
Extra 'Interesting' Modifier 0
Karma-Bonus Modifier +1
Total Score: 5
*
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday September
09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20528099)
Yes, replying to my own post. *sigh*
I forgot to mention that Audible.com
[audible.com] offers audiobooks for
download, and I'm under the impression
that they're DRM-free and work with
Macs. I haven't tried it, though, so I
could be wrong. So a third option would
be to somehow convince them (and have
them convince their publishers) to
enter the library market without adding
DRM.
And yes, I _DO_ sit around all day and
think about things like this and make
up lists of where people can get free
audiobook downloads. It's not like we
don't care. :P
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
#
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by DrgnDancer (137700) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20528303)
(http://www.feyknight.com/)
Audible.com files are not DRM
free, but they have a DRM agent
for Mac. I've used their services
and can verify that their content
works on Mac exactly the same way
as it works in Windows. I don't
know about FOSS operating systems;
I seriously doubt it works with
them.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20529245)
Excellent. Thank you for
posting that. So they're only
a slightly better option,
then. Essentially, we're
going to have to push the
publishers to allow DRM-free
downloads, I think.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:1)
by skeeto (1138903) on Sunday September
09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20528535)
(http://www.cse.psu.edu/~wellons)
I'm a librarian for a public library in
Pittsburgh.
I bet your library has "Carnegie" in
the name.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
#
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20529223)
You'd be wrong, actually, though
it was a nice guess. Very good
chance, statistically speaking.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September
09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20531347)
Two points:
1. A public library or publicly funded
library (university or otherwise) has a
financial obligation regarding how it
spends money.
2. An ALA affiliated librarian sup****ts
the "right to read" as defined in the
ALA constitution.
Both of these are in conflict with
paying for restricted digital
materials. If the ALA were effective it
would leverage its influence with
publishers to eliminate the issue.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:3, Insightful)
by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20533637)
(http://www.ferrus.net/)
With all due respect to the parent poster and to
Mr. Stallman, my job is not to take a stand on
DRM.
As a librarian, it absolutely is your
ethical/professional responsibility to
evaluate the social implications of DRM
technology and potentially take a stand
on the issue. DRM acceptance has the
potential to define the level of access
to human knowledge people have. DRM use
today has a direct impact on the extent
to which libraries can archive
information for the future.
The model for libraries has always been
that the library actually controls a
copy of the book / CD / tape and can
lend it to anyone at any time.
DRM-en***bered files give the publisher
complete control - with a default of
"deny access". That default is utterly
incompatible with the mission of a
public library.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
#
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20534173)
As a librarian, it absolutely is
your ethical/professional
responsibility to evaluate the
social implications of DRM
technology and potentially take a
stand on the issue.
While I agree that DRM falls
within my professional concerns,
it's not the main concern of my
job, and I'm certainly not going
to treat it as such. I have
complained to eAudiobook reps
about compatibility issues, I've
compiled lists of alternate
sources of eAudiobooks for
patrons, and I've spent countless
hours with patrons trying to get
their downloading and transferring
to their mp3 players to work. And
while that is all a part of my
job, it is still not the essence
of my job, and I have neither the
time nor the inclination to make
it so.
Furthermore, if you want me to
compare the use of DRM on
eAudiobooks to the use of items
owned by public libraries, you
won't like the result.
The model for libraries has always
been that the library actually
controls a copy of the book / CD /
tape and can lend it to anyone at
any time. DRM-en***bered files
give the publisher complete
control - with a default of "deny
access". That default is utterly
incompatible with the mission of a
public library.
Um, that's just not correct.
Public libraries have often owned
or provided access to a great many
items, including books, CDs, DVDs,
periodical articles, and
audiobooks. While many of those
items were physically owned by the
library, not all were. Often the
public library would only have
periodical indexes and would help
a patron find where they could get
a copy of an article--but the
patron would have to secure it
themselves or pay for it. The
electronic databases of the past
15 years are an improvement over
that in that we often have access
to the full text of many articles,
but again, that is leased access
and it is controlled in a number
of ways that the library pays for,
including number of simultaneous
users and whether or not remote
access exists. If the vendor
suddenly decides to shut down or
change access or we stop paying
for a database, that's the end of
access.
As for the purpose of DRM on
library items, let's look at how
your normal library book is
handled. Public Library X buys the
book and makes it available.
Patron A checks said book out.
Patron A must return the book to
the library or pay for it, and
Patron A knows (or should know)
that they cannot just photocopy
the book because that is copyright
infringement. Also, most books are
rather prohibitively large to
photocopy--you might as well just
buy the thing. However, they can
read the book and return it, and
all is well and good. As for CDs,
they can be borrowed and listened
to and returned, but I certainly
wouldn't let you walk in, pick up
one of the library's music CDs and
burn a copy for yourself on one of
our computers without stopping you
and telling you it was a violation
of copyright.
If we move to the realm of
eAudiobooks and attempt to apply
the same expectations of a due
date where the patron must stop
using the item and a restriction
on copying the item, we run into
problems. The file the patron is
downloading is not the one and
only file; if the patron does not
return it, they aren't billed for
it and the library does not have
to buy a new one. Instead, it is
merely one copy of that original
file. In order to make sure that
the copy does not continue to
exist forever without being
checked out again, some form of
control must be used on the file.
That's where DRM comes in on
library eAudiobooks. It also
exists to prevent a patron from
just copying the audiobook for
their own use.
Now if this were my own personal
audiobook, then no, DRM should not
be on it. As a consumer, I am
entitled to make back-up copies of
my own purchase and listen to it
for as long as I want. But as a
library patron, it is not your
book--you are borrowing it for an
amount of time, you do not have
the right to make back-ups, and
this is the electronic way they
enforce that.
To turn this back to OverDrive and
other eAudiobook vendors, my
biggest gripe is not necessarily
that they have DRM on the files
(because as you can see from
above, I can see the uses in a
library setting.) It's that they
don't sup****t multiple platforms.
My first choice would be no DRM at
all. In general I don't like it
and I think it creates more
problems than it solves. That
would be the simplest thing for
library patrons, and it would get
rid of the whole issue of
compatibility. However, barring
that, then I want multiple
compatibility options for my
patrons.
Finally, in a good many cases, the
library DOES own a copy of the
book, the CD, the audiobook, etc.
in addition to the eAudiobook.
That's certainly the case with the
popular titles. Generally we're
trying to serve as many people as
we can.
DRM use today has a direct impact
on the extent to which libraries
can archive information for the
future.
I think you have a misconception
of what libraries do. In general,
we aren't necessarily archiving
information for the future.
Archives archive. Libraries
sup****t various communities with
access to the relevant information
they need, depending on the
mission statement of said library.
While that may include archiving
some information, in a lot of
cases it involves chucking a lot
more to make room for new stuff.
We don't have the physical
newspapers from the 80s or 90s. In
fact, we don't keep more than the
past month. The usage to space
ratio wasn't worth it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
shalla (Score:2)
Starting Score: 1 point
Karma-Bonus Modifier +1
Total Score: 2
*
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:1)
by Paua Fritter (448250) on
Monday September 10, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20536675)
To turn this back to OverDrive and other
eAudiobook vendors, my biggest gripe is not
necessarily that they have DRM on the files
(because as you can see from above, I can see the
uses in a library setting.) It's that they don't
sup****t multiple platforms.
One of the main reasons their
titles are platform dependent
is because they use DRM
mechanisms which are platform
dependent. Why are the DRM
mechanisms so tied to
specific platforms? One
im****tant reason is that to
be effective, a DRM mechanism
really have to be built into
the guts of the system; by
contrast, software which is
neatly and elegantly designed
with ****tability and
interoperability in mind is
virtually impossible to build
a DRM-enabled system with,
because it allows the end
user too much flexibility and
power.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by Chandon Seldon (43083) on
Monday September 10, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20538949)
(http://www.ferrus.net/)
I think you have a misconception of what libraries
do. In general, we aren't necessarily archiving
information for the future.
Just because you don't
archive all (or even most) of
the stuff you have doesn't
mean that the ability to
archive isn't directly
valuable to you. Further, I'm
100% sure that you would
archive *everything* if you
had the space to do so.
Electronic storage of books
and articles means that you
naturally do have the space
to store everything - DRM
just prevents you from of
taking advantage of that
fact.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
-
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on
Monday September 10,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20541641)
Further, I'm 100% sure
that you would archive
*everything* if you had
the space to do so.
Electronic storage of
books and articles means
that you naturally do
have the space to store
everything - DRM just
prevents you from of
taking advantage of that
fact.
IF we had the space and
IF we had the money and
IF we had the staff and
IF we had the time to
convert everything
physical to digital and
IF we had a good enough
search algorithm to get
relevant results from
all the crap that would
then be in the mix and
IF whatever storage and
retrieval methods we
chose didn't go obsolete
almost immediately, then
yes, the library hosting
original files and
backing them up for
every piece of
information it ever
touched would be ideal.
Can I toss in unicorns
and a decent wage for me
while we're dreaming?
The above is never going
to happen. (Well, I'm
holding out hopes for
bits of it, particularly
the decent wage bit, but
the forces of the
universe aligning so
that all the others
happen at the same time?
I can't say I think
that's likely.)
I understand what you're
saying, but I'm afraid
that I work too much
with practicalities.
Items get stolen or
ruined. Web sites close.
Small press publishers
go out of business, and
local businesses decide
to stop putting out
their annual Top Twenty
Places to Go Do Whatever
(which the public
apparently can't live
without). There are very
few pieces of
information that are
considered so rare and
valuable that they will
soon not be either 1)
out of date, or 2) not
used enough by our
patrons that it matters.
It's difficult for me to
get worked up over
whether or not we'll
have access to an
eAudiobook download of
The Devil Wears Prada in
twenty years when I'm
not even sure if anyone
would be able to listen
to it then. Or would
want to.
I should point out that
libraries are generally
not choosing to do
eAudiobook downloads
instead of purchasing
Books on CD or Cassette.
For many, they've taken
only a ****tion of that
budget (which might have
been spent on, say,
extra copies or abridged
copies) and put it
towards the eAudiobooks.
So instead of getting 4
unabridged versions and
2 abridged versions of
the latest Janet
Evanovich book on CD,
the library might
purchase 3 unabridged
versions and 1 abridged
version. At the same
time, one person can
check out the OverDrive
copy, and if NetLibrary
has a copy, multiple
people can check it out
at once. So in many
cases, it's a format
option for the patrons.
They don't have to use
it.
From a purely
theoretical standpoint,
DRM on items deprives
people from access that
would be useful or
necessary in many
cir***stances. From a
practical standpoint, it
can serve a purpose in
the library. (See my
comments about check out
times and copyright
protection in previous
post.)
If my choice is between
providing bad service to
my patrons by ignoring
their requests based on
a theoretical objection
or giving them the
service they're
requesting and educating
them about DRM and
working to try and
change it while we work
with it, then I'm going
for the second option.
I'm more practical than
theoretical in nature.
The second never manages
to calmly get the
hundred people out of
the building during the
fire alarm. ;)
And in the end, I'd
rather not be the nanny
who says, "No, you can't
have this because the
DRM isn't good for you."
Let the people be
educated and decide for
themselves. They can
always ignore the
eAudiobooks and use our
Books on CD instead.
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
*
(1) | 2
Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my
beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D.
Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)
Libraries Defend Open Access |
116 comments | Starting at #75 |
Display Options
Threshold:
[-1: 116 comments][Nested.....][Oldest First.........
........] Change Reply
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by
whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them
in any way.
1 | (2)
*
*
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2, Informative)
by dsaklad (162420) on Sunday September 09,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20527231)
(http://zork.net/~dsaklad)
Send a letter to the Boston Public Library
* Send this page to somebody
"I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to
terminate its association with OverDrive Audio
Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be
agents for the propagation of Digital
Restrictions Management."
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl
[fsf.org]
Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston
Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the
system they currently use to distribute audio
books, since this format requires the use of
proprietary software. It is illegal in the US to
release free software capable of reading these
audio books because of the Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM) measures that are being imposed.
You can help by sending your own letter to the
BPL (gref at bpl dot org) and by examining the
policies of your own local library. We would be
glad to see CCs of any letters you send at
campaigns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto] and to hear about any
similar policies in place at libraries other than
the BPL.
Please keep an eye on our DRM campaign area for
future updates about this and other related
issues
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl
[fsf.org]
[ Reply to This ]
+
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 09,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20527357)
I would but my word processor only outputs
ODF [slashdot.org].
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
+
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday September 09,
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20529329)
Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston
Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon
the system they currently use to distribute
audio books, since this format requires the
use of proprietary software. It is illegal
in the US to release free software capable
of reading these audio books because of the
Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)
measures that are being imposed.
Did he, you know, bother to ask what the
alternatives were?
There are no eAudiobook vendors for
libraries that do not use DRM. Libraries are
in the position of either not offering a
service that is highly requested by patrons,
or offering one that is useable only by
those with the dominant operating system. As
a librarian for a public library, I would
gladly offer a DRM-free, non-proprietary
format if one were available. However, since
my options are DRM or nothing, then I must
reluctantly opt for DRM.
So, rather than spamming libraries with form
letters when they are not in a position to
change the system, try writing to publishers
and to the vendors (OverDrive, NetLibrary,
Audible.com, etc.) with your comments.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:1)
by dsaklad (162420) on Sunday September
09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20530587)
(http://zork.net/~dsaklad)
Around the web what are examples of
some links?... for free audio books
available that are compatible with more
types of computer setups?
It would be a good idea to list these
examples on libraries' websites where
library clientele are also pointed to
overdrive. Then overdrive becomes one
of the listed alternatives among other
free audio books that are available.
Boston Public Library and Cambridge
Public Library
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CPL/audioboo
ks.html [cambridgema.gov] across the
river should list many of the
alternatives including the overdrive
method rather than limiting the pointer
to only one!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
#
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20533113)
Sadly, there aren't that many good
sites with more than, say, 10 free
audio books on them. However,
that's better than a couple years
ago. I don't have my list with me
atm, but off the top of my head:
Librivox [librivox.org]
Audio Books For Free
[audiobooksforfree.com] (which has
both free and pay options)
Free Classic Audio Books
[freeclassi...obooks.com]
And this great post Audiobook
Podcast Collection [oculture.com]
at Open Culture, which lists some
sites at the bottom.
If you go through through the
list, you'll note that the vast
majority are classics in the
public domain rather than anything
new. I can't say they've been a
big hit with patrons.
There's also Audible.com
[audible.com],which is a pay site
with DRMed files for both Mac and
Windows.
For us, people often find the
eAudiobooks in our catalog when
they search and simply click on a
link to it, so if they're looking
for a specific book, that's often
how they get to the OverDrive or
NetLibrary version. I do agree
that libraries should list the
DRM-free audiobook sites on their
Web pages, and you could always
send them a polite e-mail
suggesting that they do that as a
service for patrons with
incompatible systems, iPods, etc.
After all, it will certainly make
the library look much better too.
:) (Sort of "We can't do anything
about this right now, but we're
out there looking for you guys
too!")
I'm not sure what different
libraries' policies would be about
putting up links to commercial
sites like Audible.com or Audio
Books for Free that the library
hasn't contracted with.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
o
Can't libraries negotiate?
(Score:1)
by tepples (727027)
<slash2006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20530951)
(http://atomichgstore.com/
| Last
Journal: Sunday November 19, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
Libraries are in the position of either
not offering a service that is highly
requested by patrons, or offering one
that is useable only by those with the
dominant operating system.
The library could ask patrons who feel
serious about audio books to sign a
petition against DRM in order to boost
its negotiating power, right?
However, since my options are DRM or
nothing, then I must reluctantly opt
for DRM.
If your options for paper books were to
keep them inside the physical presence
of the library (and not lend them) or
not to carry them at all, what would
you do?
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
#
Re:Can't libraries negotiate?
(Score:2)
by shalla (642644) on Sunday
September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(#20532907)
The library could ask patrons who
feel serious about audio books to
sign a petition against DRM in
order to boost its negotiating
power, right?
Any one library doing this would
be ineffective. It has to be a
big, organized movement, and
frankly, we've got a few other
things going on right now. I'm not
saying it's a bad idea, just don't
expect your local library (which
may consist of one overworked
person) to necessarily put this at
the top of their To Do list.
That said, I do recommend you stop
in and have a friendly chat with
your local librarian to find out
what your library offers in this
vein, what he/she knows about it,
and if there's anything they think
you can do to help. Offer to sign
such a petition. If they don't
really understand DRM, try and
find a non-painful way to start
educating them on the issues. I
can't pretend that every library
has only people who understand
technology really well, but most
libraries have people who want to
serve their patrons well.
In another post, I gave the
contact information for OverDrive,
NetLibrary, and OCLC (NetLibrary's
parent organization). I'd suggest
writing to them about your
concerns, too. I imagine they have
to agree to DRM to get publishers
to agree to distribute eAudiobooks
through them. It might be easier
to organize through a single
organization or company to put
pressure on publishers than
through the widely scattered and
varied libraries of America.
If your options for paper books
were to keep them inside the
physical presence of the library
(and not lend them) or not to
carry them at all, what would you
do?
There are certainly cases where
you cannot take books out of the
library. In fact, there are whole
libraries and collections like
that where the items are too rare
or valuable to circulate and the
patrons have to come to the books.
Also, I note that circulating
books have to be returned to the
library in a certain amount of
time or you are billed to replace
them, and if you were to take the
book to the library's photocopier
and attempt to photocopy the whole
book, someone should stop you and
tell you that you can't because
that's a violation of copyright.
DRM on eAudiobooks is supposed to
replicate the checkout function by
causing eAudiobooks to expire when
the checkout period is done so you
can't keep them forever, and it's
supposed to stop you from breaking
copyright. So on digital items
checked out from a library, DRM
does have a legitimate function.
Library patrons don't have the
right to make back-up copies of
the borrowed work or keep it
forever. The trick is that 1) it
needs to work, and 2) it needs to
work with the systems and formats
of our patrons and not exclude
those who have something other
than the dominant system.
Now if it were an eAudiobook or
downloadable music I were
purchasing for myself, I would
expect it to be DRM-free so that I
could make back-up copies and I
wouldn't have to worry about
licenses or time outs. If they
can't offer multi-platform DRM for
libraries, then I think the
offerings need to be DRM-free. But
I do still see the point of DRM
when you're talking about borrowed
electronic materials. (Other
borrowed electronic materials such
as databases handle compensation
and access a different way, such
as limiting the number of
simultaneous users or whether the
database can be accessed remotely
and charging fees based on usage.
It's all very... icky. That's the
technical term.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
*
1 | (2)
Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my
beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D.
Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned
by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the
Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 SourceForge, Inc.
#News for nerds, stuff that matters Search Slashdot
Libraries Defend Open Access
Posted by kdawson on Sunday September 09, @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
from the we-already-paid-for-it-once dept.
Censor****p Science
aisaac writes "Earlier this year an article in Nature
(PDF, subscription required) exposed publishers'
plans to equate public access to federally funded
research with government censor****p and the
destruction of peer review. In an open letter last
month, Rockefeller University Press castigated the
publishers' sock-puppet outfit, PRISM, for using
distorting rhetoric in a coordinated PR attack on
open access. Now the Association of Research
Libraries has released an Issue Brief addressing this
PR campaign in more detail. The Issue Brief exposes
some of the distortions used to persuade key policy
makers that recent gains made by open access
scientific publi****ng pose a danger to peer reviewed
scientific research, free markets, and possibly the
future of western civilization. As an example of what
the publishers backing PRISM hate, consider the
wonderfully successful grants policy of the National
Institutes of Health, which requires papers based on
grant-funded research to be published in PubMed
Central."
[+] censor****p, science, copyrighttheft, draconian,
journals (tagging beta)
Related Stories
[+] Scientist Must Pay to Read His Own Paper 289
comments
Glyn Moody writes "Peter Murray Rust, a chemist at
Cambridge University, was lost for words when he
found Oxford University Press's website demanded $48
from him to access his own scientific paper, in which
he holds copyright and which he released under a
Creative Commons license. As he writes, the journal
in question was "selling my intellectual property,
without my permission, against the terms of the
license (no commercial use)." In the light of this
kind of copyright abuse and of the PRISM Coalition, a
new FUD group set up by scientific publishers to
discredit open access, isn't it time to say enough is
enough, and demand free access to the research we pay
for through our taxes?"
Firehose:Libraries Defend Open Access by aisaac
(247911)
Libraries Defend Open Access | Log In/Create an
Account | Top | 116 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options
Threshold:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/09/08/1739235.shtml
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short.
|
