You may have read the article in PCPRO Magazine : “British Library shouts out against unfair DRM”; Tuesday 26th September 2006.  http://www.pcpro.co.uk/shopper/broadband/news/94639/british-library-shouts-out-against-unfair-drm.html

Despite being a DRM provider, I identify with most of what CEO Lynne Brindley is reported as having said.

Now that we are fully in the digital age it is very difficult to understand why it is that there should be different laws for copyright works that are dependent upon either their content, or how they were traditionally manufactured, when in digital form it is all the same. 

We seem to have lost sight of the idea that Copyright was a means of rewarding the creator of a work for their intellectual capacity, and in some legislatures, to prevent their work from being misrepresented.  Today, you might be forgiven for thinking that Copyright legislation has been more about protecting powerful industry groups, allowing them to dominate development and restrict innovation and competition.

I agree that taking backups for the preservation of materials (digital ones, that is since a backup of a paper book is a photocopy, and I’m not sure that’s quite the plan) is essential, but I suspect that such nationally recognised bodies as the British Library would have little difficulty in persuading Copyright holders to let them have an uncontrolled copy for an agreement not to disclose until the Copyright term has ended.  It is commonly agreed by publishers that letting libraries have copies is not really an issue because they generally behave properly and police and administer what goes on under their control.

At this point the sheer volume of backup might start to be a real problem for libraries, but that is not my problem. We are looking at the principle.

The problem is not really with the libraries, but with the public.

It all starts when you address the requirement for fair dealing.  Something that has exercised the British Library a great deal as it fulfils its role as the British nation’s keeper of recorded culture.

Fair dealing basically says that you can make extracts for the purpose of study, or for criticism, or for parody, and that is not illegal.  From my memory fair dealing came from the printed book age, and was a balance between the rights of the author/publisher to obtain a living, but preventing them from obtaining a monopoly on information or protecting them from publishing information that could be shown to be wrong and being able to prevent any criticism when they printed something wrong.  (Do remember that you have to be able to read a work to find out if it is libellous, and be able to quote from it to prove the point.  That is different from the idea of ‘free speech.’)

When fair dealing was invented, the only way to take a copy of something was to get out you pen(cil) and paper and make your own copy by hand.  Now as far as I can see, that’s perfectly fair.  If you wanted a copy you had to do the work to get one.  OK, it was not the doddle that getting a photocopy is today – but why should it be?  I have not found any justifications in fair dealing that say you must give every facility to the person using the Copyright work to make uncontrolled copies.  I have to write this word by word and line by line.  So if you want to make notes please be my guest.

And the same goes with films and pictures and so on.  Please read your authorized copy as long and as often as you wish.  But if you want a copy (other than one that only you can use) then please get ready to do some work.

In the meantime I wish the British Library well addressing the recording of an immense and rich cultural heritage.  Thank goodness they have the experience and stature for the task.