« Libraries can win thousands of dollars in Amazon products | Main | metasearch engine for webmasters »
January 23, 2007
Wired News article criticizes libraries for using eBooks with DRM
Wired News has published an article by Eliot Van Buskirk and Sean Michaels entitled "Public Libraries, Private DRM." The poorly-researched article has two main points once you suss them out, neither of which is well explained or supported. It's a very confused and inflammatory piece. Their two complaints are:
- Public library eBooks should all works on Macs (which I agree with)
- Public library eBooks shouldn't have any digital rights management on them (which is insane)
There are all sorts of flaws to their arguments, they make false assumptions and statements like: Overdrive is the only vendor, all eBooks at libraries don't work with Macs, libraries' physical materials don't have any copyright restrictions, on and on. Overdrive is not the only vendor. Most library eBooks do work with Macs, just not the audio books. And physical materials do have copyright restrictions.
They're basically complaining that they can't rip the public libraries' digital content like they've been doing with CDs and DVDs. Apparently they never thought to wonder if what they were doing with the physical items was against the law. Funny, that.
I don't often comment on mainstream media posts, but these authors were just begging for a smack upside the head. In an ideal world, yes, there would be no DRM and we'd all exchange materials and ideas freely. But libraries are faced with either offering online content with DRM or not offering online content at all. I would venture a guess that most of our users are glad we chose the former option and not the latter.
January 23, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c511253ef00e5506540448834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wired News article criticizes libraries for using eBooks with DRM:
Comments
Thank you for your response - it was v. helpful having the addresses of NetLibrary and Overdrive. However, I don't think it's fair to finger Apple's DRM policies alone here. To run Windows Media Player that provides DRM, one must have Windows, which requires at least $200 - more if you have an older Mac, because you need to buy software to run Windows in a virtual environment. Microsoft provides a version of Windows Media Player for Mac, but they've stopped supporting it and it lacks the DRM features of its Windows version - thus Mac owners who haven't purchased Windows cannot get material with WMP-linked DRM protection. Flip4Mac, which is what Microsoft recommends Mac owners replace WMP with, does not provide DRM capability. When a library provides cassettes, CD's and DVD's to the public, it's true that the library is purchasing material for devices that some people may not have. However, the library isn't spending money on media that *must* be played on a particular brand of device - would libraries purchase material that could only be played on Sony Walkmans, for example?
Posted by: Cathy | April18, 2007
I agree that it is problematic for a library to purchase any kind of media that only certain people will be able to access. But, one could argue that we've done just that when we've offered anything other than printed books. CDs, cassettes, DVDs, VHS, CD-ROMs--these all require a device to access them. And not everyone in our community has the device. So, is it not fair to offer these media as well? I think that's an important question to answer.
Also, I got from your message, Cathy, that there is a bit of confusion on the issue. The audio books that libraries around the country are purchasing (which is the thrust behind the libraries & DRM debate) require Windows Media Player. But they do not require a purchased version of that software. You do have to have Windows, however. And Mac users can purchase a Mac and partition their drive so that Windows is running on one half. Yes, you still have to obtain a copy of Windows, but you don't have to buy a PC. I don't know what is required of your particular library's video content collection, but my guess is that it is the same thing, and could be solved in the same way. And yes, I know, you are still having to buy something, some license, from Windows.
Libraries knows that users, by and large, don't want to rip content illegally. But the potential is there, and the publishers and content owners ultimately decide what types of rights management are imposed on their material. This isn't libraries imposing DRM...we're purchasing materials with DRM that we can't purchase any other way.
Many librarians have contacted the companies providing the content, the publishers, and the computer companies to ask what we need to do to fix this problem. Groups like the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance are speaking out against DRM publicly.
Below is the text of a message that I send to our library's users when they have questions about the Mac compatibility of our downloadable audio books. Basically, to answer your question--it's not the vendors who are the problem...it's the computer companies who are creating the DRM schemes.
*****************************************
Thank you for your interest in our downloadable audio eBooks!
The Library certainly realizes that some of our users are desktop or laptop Macintosh users--actually somewhere around 8-15%, depending on who you ask--and an additional percentage of our users have chosen iPods as their portable audio players. We are very sorry that we cannot offer audio eBooks to those users through our two downloadable audio eBook collections: NetLibrary and Digital Books. Currently, however, there simply _is not_ an audio eBook vendor who both deals with libraries and is Macintosh compatible.
I have spoken with Overdrive and NetLibrary representatives (our two audio eBook vendors) and Apple representatives at length over this issue, and it is clear that the Mac-incompatibility is the result of the digital rights management and proprietary formats on Macintosh computers & devices (like the iPod). The way PCs (Windows/Microsoft) and other computers/systems like Linux handle digital rights management just isn’t compatible with the way Macs/iPods (Apple) handles digital rights management. There is currently a lawsuit pending in France against Apple over this very issue.
The best recourse that we as librarians, and you as one of our customers, have is to write letters to Apple, NetLibrary, and Overdrive complaining about the situation. As an iPod owner myself, I have done just that. You are most welcome to do the same (contact information is listed at the end of this message). The more voices they hear, the more likely they are to change.
If you are looking for audio books for your Macintosh or iPod, your two main options are currently Audible.com and iTunes, both of which are individual for-pay services. Most people in the technology industry believe that Apple's iTunes store is why they won't allow non-Apple DRM content on their devices. If they can make money selling to a cornered market of Apple device owners, why give up that money by sharing their market?
The Adobe text eBooks in the Digital Books and NetLibrary collections, and all the other eBooks collections that the library subscribes to (Safari Tech Books Online, Tumblebooks, and the Virtual Reference Library) are 100% Mac compatible. it is only the audio eBooks that are not.
I can assure you that I will continue to monitor options to libraries for audio eBooks that are Mac-compatible.
Again, thank you for your feedback!
Sincerely,
Sarah Houghton-Jan
Information and Web Services Librarian
San Mateo County Library
******************************
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR APPLE
Apple
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino, CA 95014
408.996.1010
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR OCLC/NETLIBRARY/RECORDED BOOKS
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Kilgour Place
Dublin, Ohio 43017-3395
1-800-848-5800
support@oclc.org
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR OVERDRIVE
e-mail form at: http://www.dlrinc.com/LibraryService-Info.asp
OverDrive World Headquarters
OverDrive, Inc.
Valley Tech Center - Suite C
8555 Sweet Valley Drive
Cleveland, OH 44125 USA
Phone: (216) 573-6886
Fax: (216) 573-6888
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | April 3, 2007
Our library (Contra Costa in the SF Bay area) is testing a system that downloads video content to one's computer. This new service, like Overdrive's, cannot be used by Mac owners (unless the Mac owner shells out for a newer computer and runs Windows on the Mac). Members of our user group don't necessarily want to rip content illegally. We feel that we are being unfairly deprived of a service that is available to Windows users. I appreciate the perceived need for digital rights management, but does anyone else feel that it's not right to use taxpayer dollars on services that require software from a particular corporation (Microsoft), locking out anyone who doesn't purchase from Microsoft? Some members of our group would like to know what public libraries as a group are doing (or what can libraries or the public in general do) to pressure vendors to offer content that's accessible to everyone. (We'd appreciate seeing the LIB's perspective on the question in the last sentence.)
Posted by: Cathy | April 2, 2007
As I've also said repeatedly, I do believe DRM is a short-lived solution to the copyright issue. DRM-free content is the way of the future. However, in the meantime, yes--I believe that an international organization of copyright offices from various countries should be formed to control DRM...much like the UN. That's the only way to make this work, and it's a solution that many, many people have suggested in the discussions about DRM.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | March23, 2007
No belabor a point here, but someone (a company, organization) has to hold the proverbial software keys to this umbrella DRM. Who would you suggest be the gatekeeper? What group says this information is protected, but this data is not worthy - for whatever reason - of DRM? The copyright office or patent office? What a hoot? These cats are barely able to enforce copyright/patent laws in this country, much less on a worldwide level. Somehow Asia comes to mind here.
And should such a "non-proprietary" group loose control of its DRM, what then? How would they be held accountable, how would they rectify any damages or breech of their codes?
As Jobs implies, DRM by its very nature is a band-aid for an outdated and ubiquitously failed system of copyright. The call should be DRM-free content, not an unworkable umbrella system.
Posted by: W Baker | March23, 2007
I stand by my original assertion. To create inter-operable DRM does not require Jobs "sharing his secrets" of FairPlay. A third, non-proprietary form of DRM could be created that would work for everyone. I think it is you that have missed something in those paragraphs, not I.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | March23, 2007
I just read Mrs. Houghton-Jan's post, and while belated, wanted to point her to two paragraphs in Job's letter which she claims is missing. That's two paragraphs which she missed which directly address her umbrella DRM model.
How is this possible to miss Job's very succinct point against overall DRM and then make the claims she does about stupidity or market share?
Begin quotation:
"The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.
An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak."
Posted by: W Baker | March23, 2007
The article was interesting, though I think I got something different out of it than you may have. Jobs missed a fourth option for the future--which is for various DRM-system creators to get together and try to figure out a schema that will satisfy and work for everyone involved--including book and music publishers. Why don't they do this? Because then they (both Apple and Microsoft) wouldn't have a lock on their markets, and they would potentially lose money. I think the opposite is true--if you open up DRM to allow any content to work on any device, i think you would see an increase in overall purchases of digital content. Right now people are hesitant to get into the digital content market because the DRM is so limiting. For Jobs to miss this basic option in his article shows me that he either thinks the people reading it are stupid or that he doesn't care about cooperating with other content providers. In either case, it is clear that protecting corporate profit is the #1 goal here, users be damned.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | February 9, 2007
I was a little surprised to see that my public library offers downloadable audio books but went with a provider that cannot offer them to iPod users. Audio books are more interesting to me as a download than digital versions of text books so I'm not missing the fact that option exists- its just not as useful to me.
After doing a searching to see if I could find an online resource for audio books on iPods I saw your page, found your discussion interesting, and thought you might find this article by Steve Jobs relevant.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
It changed my opinion on why the various manufacturers have different and currently incompatible DRMs.
Hope this is illuminating to you as well.
Posted by: SteamboatCat | February 8, 2007
I first ran into this a couple of months ago while I was doing an author presentation. I wanted to incorporate a clip into a powerpoint from an audio book (30 seconds according to fair-use guidelines) and found the audio book at CPL's overdrive page. Then I discovered that it was Windows only, I'm a Mac user so that was out of the question. If I had checked out the CD I could have ripped it and used a 30 second clip (according to fair-use guidelines) within the powerpoint itself. With DRM I couldn't do that. I suppose if I was using a windows machine I could have switched from the powerpoint to the overdrive software and then played it from there... I like my presentations seemless, so that's not something I really want to do, but I'll do what I have to to make it work. I ended up going a different route so that solved the problem, but I was still left with a bad taste in my mouth over the whole scenario.
You're right, there does really need to be a standard DRM that works with all devices and platforms. I don't think we'll see that anytime soon because of companies like Apple and Microsoft using DRM not as content protection, but as a product lock in device (IMO).
Posted by: cplpatron | January24, 2007
A lot of people do check out materials (CDs, DVDs, books on CD) and copy them illegally. So, I'm happy to see that you don't--but others do--and somehow don't see that what they're doing is illegal, and as a result don't understand that the DRM that's in place on the library's digital files is there for just that reason. None of this is the library's creation. We're just playing the best we can in a stinky minefield.
The unfortunate thing is, even if a company were to delve into the iPod-compatible eBooks at this point, say Apple actually did it, they would in all likelihood only work on iPods. As a result, the library is going to have to make some tough financial choices. Do we buy the product that works for PCs, or the one that works for Macs? Most libraries would not be able to afford both. The ideal scenario is for audio DRM to be standardized so that everyone can get along with everyone else and consumers and libraries are not forced to make this ridiculous decision.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) | January24, 2007
I've never checked out audiobooks or AV media from the library. I was just being rhetorical.
Posted by: cplpatron | January23, 2007
Disagreeing with me is fine, even encouraged. But please read what I've written carefully first so you know what you're disagreeing with. Overdrive is not the only vendor. Likewise, most library eBooks do work with Macs, just not the audio books, and physical library materials do have copyright restrictions.
There is no single provider that sells to libraries that offers downloadable audio books. If there was one, we'd buy from them. Currently, if libraries want to offer audio books to iPod users, they have to purchase each title from iTunes or Audible.com and load it onto the user's player for them, or loan out pre-loaded iPods. To comply with licensing rules, the library has to re-pay for the title each time a new user checks it out (very, very costly). In most of today's public libraries, we are severely understaffed. There isn't enough staff time to complete these tasks. The providers like Overdrive and NetLibrary provide the eBooks on platforms (websites) which allow the users to go directly to the site and download, with no intervention from library staff whatsoever. That's why that method is doable and the iPod method is not for most libraries.
You're right--most users wouldn't want to listen to an audiobook from the computer directly. But the audio books are compatible with about 95% of non-iPod MP3 players. That doesn't help the iPod users, me included, but it works for a lot of people. With MP3 players coming down in cost so much, many users buy a cheap MP3 player for $40 to use with the audiobooks, if they're that into it. You can also burn quite a few (not all, but a lot) of the audio books to CD in Overdrive, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.
It's true that most libraries don't allow downloading the books in the library. This is primarily because the libraries have to have time limits on the computers, and the time it takes to download a title and then transfer it to a portable device is more than that time limit (usually one hour max). If you want to pay more tax money so we can buy bigger buildings and put in more computers to meet user demand, we could offer this service.
And I hate to let you know, but if you were checking out audio books on CD from the library and then ripping them to CD for your own personal use and keeping them you were breaking the copyright and use requirements that the publisher clearly prints on the material. That has nothing to do with the library, but with the publisher's rules and the law. So to answer your question about why doing that is a bad thing--it's against the law. Those books on CD had the same copyright limitations that these digital audio books do--that's what DRM is--enforcement of copyright laws. The only difference is that the laws and rules can be enforced technologically with the digital books whereas with physical materials (books, CDs, DVDs) the publisher and the library trusts our users to do the right thing and obey the law, which you clearly did not do.
I'm not saying DRM is a good thing, and by no means is it perfect. Search my archive to see past posts on DRM. I am not a fan. But DRM exists. DRM is not something the libraries invented, but we're doing the best we can in a world where DRM is a reality.
Posted by: Sarah Houghton-Jan (Librarian in Black) | January23, 2007
I have to disagree with you. Just because overdrive is the only vendor doesn't mean that libraries have to buy into it. The one thing that really makes me angry is that ipods are rougly 70% of the mp3 player marketshare (source, source, source) which means that libraries that buy into this scheme are probably going to be cutting out a large section of their patrons from enjoying this service. I'm willing to bet that most people listen to audio books while doing something rather than just sitting in front of their computer, even people that are windows user but own ipods can't enjoy audio books while they are driving, excercising, etc... They will have to be sitting in front of their computer to listen to them. Does the Zune even support this DRM? Last time I heard the Zune didn't play "Play for Sure" DRM. Even Microsoft's mp3 player might not support this DRM product. I'm a patron of Chicago Public Library and it even states on the CPL Digital Audio Book Catalog that "while you may download digital audio books to your personal computer or PDA they are only available for browsing from the Library's computers. It is not possible to download digital audio books at Chicago Public Library locations at this time." You can't even listen to these in the libary itself. From my perspective, these things are so restrictive as to be practically useless. At least with the audio books on CD I could rip them to anything I want to and use them practically anywhere I want. I'm not exactly sure how that is a bad thing.
Posted by: cplpatron | January23, 2007
