I find it very helpful to be reminded from time to time that there are many perceptions as to what is (or is not) DRM, and what DRM can be applied to, so I was fascinated to read an article by Anthony Dhanendran, Computeractive 16 Aug 2010 that made the bold statement, "DRM only applies to 'digital' products, that is music, video, ebooks (digital books that can be loaded onto a handheld PC to read), games and other software - there's no way to apply DRM to a physical product such as a paperback book."

Is that right?

Anthony then goes on to remark that the problem is all with digital works and the ability to make copies easily, and that’s the problem with the digital environment.

So I guess that my taking a paperback over to the photocopier (there are some big ones that will copy a book automatically) and getting a copy simply does not happen, or that I can scan the book in using the scanning function kindly provided by the manufacturer and bingo – instant digital copy of the physical!

Now we're cooking with gas.

It has always been possible to copy works in a physical form.  Fact.  In the past, what stopped people was difficulty, time and effort to do it, and most importantly - the cost.  Whilst it was significantly cheaper to buy another original than to get a copy then the originals won.  (What is really what is going on today with the big music players going in and out of DRM - is best revenue achieved from either model, given that copying is a problem.)

So let's talk a bit about copying.

When the right to make a copy for personal study (and that meant you making a copy for only you, not making it for anybody else) was granted under 'fair use' it was not intended to be a copier's charter.  Generally you made a copy by drawing or handwriting what you wanted to copy – the concept of 'push button copying' was impossible, and so never thought about (yes, I know that lawyers will tell you that the law is perfect and needs no change, and is fully up to date, thank you).  And whilst the technology people have rushed ahead and buried the ability (but not the right) to copy deep into every possible aspect of computing itself (nothing in memory or on disk you see or use is an original, they're all copies) the law is still updating itself.

You can make a copy of the Three Graces (by Canova, Raphael or whoever, there's no monopoly on original interpretations) but you need to be jolly clever and skilled to make it worthwhile, just as you can make a copy of a piece of music by performing all the parts and then pulling the whole work together.  

So maybe all we need is a small modification to the law to clarify that if you make a copy using 'sweat of the brow' or old fashioned hard work, then that is a qualifying use for personal study, but not otherwise.  All that would do is confirm the original intent and would not alter anything that DRM is doing, merely bring into line rules of the physical and the digital worlds.