Here at the Twinsburg library, we've had great success with our "download station," which is really just a library computer set up to use the CLEVNET consortium's collection of digital media. It usually works well, and gives patrons access to a huge collection of titles.
But then, there are times it doesn't work at all. This is usually due to some kind of compatibility issue caused on one of a range of levels by Digital Rights Management (DRM). For example, a downloaded file needs an mp3 player to decode its DRM using a specific flavor of mp3, but a patron's player only plays other specific types of mp3. It can be very discouraging for the patron, and nearly impossible to explain to someone not familiar with the many headaches caused by DRM.
Well, now a group -- defectivebydesign.org -- has written an open letter to libraries urging them to boycott services that use DRM. It looks like this letter was originally sparked by experiences at the Boston library system, though the open letter is gathering signatures nationwide and is geared toward all U.S. libraries. It specifically mentions OverDrive, the company that runs our consortium's digital collection. Click here for the letter.
It's a tradeoff, there's no denying. The DRM can be oppressive. On the other hand, though, try finding a vendor that doesn't use it. So do we deny our patrons this service because of the vendor's practices? These are questions that are becoming more and more important to libraries across the country.
But then, there are times it doesn't work at all. This is usually due to some kind of compatibility issue caused on one of a range of levels by Digital Rights Management (DRM). For example, a downloaded file needs an mp3 player to decode its DRM using a specific flavor of mp3, but a patron's player only plays other specific types of mp3. It can be very discouraging for the patron, and nearly impossible to explain to someone not familiar with the many headaches caused by DRM.
Well, now a group -- defectivebydesign.org -- has written an open letter to libraries urging them to boycott services that use DRM. It looks like this letter was originally sparked by experiences at the Boston library system, though the open letter is gathering signatures nationwide and is geared toward all U.S. libraries. It specifically mentions OverDrive, the company that runs our consortium's digital collection. Click here for the letter.
It's a tradeoff, there's no denying. The DRM can be oppressive. On the other hand, though, try finding a vendor that doesn't use it. So do we deny our patrons this service because of the vendor's practices? These are questions that are becoming more and more important to libraries across the country.
1 comment:
I believe absolutely a boycott of this limited content is in order; how else is the provider supposed to realize that this practice is unacceptable? As a library, you provide us the patrons an archive of information. If this information is only available wrapped in a vendor's DRM, what are we supposed to do when the vendor loses interest in the DRM scheme (witness Microsoft's recent announcement about discontinuing PlaysForSure)? Is the information lost forever?
Post a Comment