Those of you who were lucky enough to be in London this week will have been able to go to the Online Information 2006 conference at Olympia (a building charmingly described to me by another delegate as like an elegant railway station, but much cleaner).

With plenty of articles about “Why copyright is important” and how libraries are benefiting from digital content you might have expected a real buzz in the show about how to get DRM into print publishing in a way that does not lead the industry into all the opprobrium created by the music people and what appear to be highly invasive technologies tried so far.

But not a bit of it.

Talking around the trade stands, the membership organizations are almost as complacent as turkeys before Thanksgiving or Christmas.  Stand after stand told me that they were happy to publish their content, downloadable, on the web, and that they did not have a problem about the possibility that people could copy or re-distribute their content. 

Now I have to agree that the content of (say) the Pan-galactic Bee-Keepers Journal might not be something everyone mainlines on.  But the professional society behind it would find a serious dent in their income if only one of their ‘members’ republishes.  And this goes against part of the stance taken by the British Library “Intellectual Property: A balance.”  And why should they?

The stance of the British Library is very important to setting the agenda for libraries, especially of their stature as a formal national collector and repository.  But these great institutions are surely worthy of the trust they have demonstrated so ably for so long - to be able to fulfil their roles using materials that have not been DRM protected.  Maybe we need to recognize the cultural value and heritage of these great institutions, and that it sets them apart from industry and the consumer.  And maybe we should frame new law so that it does not confuse rights that they should, and indeed must, enjoy if we are to prolong our great traditions.

But it might be wrong to generalise Copyright law for commerce and industry to say Digital is not different.  Because undoubtedly the most obvious difference between physically incorporated works and digital ones is the ability to copy.  When did you last go to a gig with a pen and paper and make a copy of the music?  How long does it take to make a copy of the Mona Lisa by hand?   Digital works by copying, and copying digital must always be possible and is usually effortless and without cost.

Whilst some may not care for the tactics of the music and film industries in trying to protect their market shares and profits, they do have a valid point – that the ‘honor system’ implied by the proponents of fair dealing has failed as comprehensively in their industry as it did in the very well documented US University examinations case.  Fair dealing is supposed, by its very title, to be fair, but the copy anytime, give to anyone, use anywhere brigade have tarnished their claim to act in a fair manner.  Even the mighty Microsoft is choosing to introduce some level, however small, of copy control and copy management into its products as an adjunct to their programs of litigation.

So don’t lets rush into a scenario where copying is a ‘free for all’ that stops people from using digital publishing because it effectively robs them of the ability to make a living from publishing their intellectual knowledge.  The British Library makes a very cold and hard point: “US based studies show that less than 2 percent of works have any commercial value at all 55 – 75 years after they were created.” 

Maybe we need to change the Copyright regime, giving a much shorter term for digital copyright, and accepting that if the shorter term applies then some other grants, such as fair dealing, may be inappropriate.  Coupled with a grant of unencumbered copies for educational and cultural heritage institutions, that could answer all parties.

Too heavy a brew perhaps.