As libraries' collections shift from print to digital holdings, librarians must increasingly familiarize themselves with the vagaries of copyright law. What had, in the age of print, been barely intelligible even to those who work in the field of copyright – legal scholar Jessica Litman's assessment of the corpus of intellectual property law as “arcane” seems particularly accurate – has become increasingly murky in the digital age, just at the time when knowledge of the workings of the law has become essential to librarians.
Copyright deals, unsurprisingly, with copies. In a print environment, what constitutes a copy is not difficult to distinguish: there are books, journals, photographs and so on, and photocopies of same. In an environment where information is delivered through digital means, each iteration of a work – each viewing on a screen, each saved file – becomes, in the eyes of the law, a copy and subject to the rules of copyright. At the same time, copyright law has moved over the past hundred or so years gradually but steadily away from a model that protects the rights of creators but balances those rights with those of the public interest to one that privileges the right of the copyright holder almost exclusively. For example, the length of the term in which the creators have the sole right to their works – the time before it enters the public domain – has increased from twenty eight years to the life of the author plus seventy years.
The provision that allows for the existence of libraries, the right of first sale, which permits (among other things) one who purchases a work of intellectual property to rent or re-sell it, is on shaky ground in a world where information is contained less and less often within a physical object like a book. As a practical example, libraries are within their rights to loan a music CD to a patron, which the patron may then take home, copy, and burn to another CD for personal use, but a library with the same album in its collection in digital form may not allow patrons to download that information from the library's website, although the end result – both the library and the patron possess a copy of the work – is the same.
The implications, though, of a shift from print to digital collections with regard to copyright are much larger. As libraries shift from a print-based to a primarily digital world, and as copyright law increasingly favors the rights of corporations over the interests of the public, it behooves librarians to educate themselves and their patrons about copyright law. In The Anarchist in the Library, Siva Vaidhyanathan warns that increased restrictions on public uses of intellectual property could lead to a dystopian future for libraries. He asserts,
"Libraries are a threat to the content industries and their plans for a pay-per-view delivery system. Libraries are leaks in the information economy. [...] Because a library can lend a book at no charge, the publisher only makes money once. It can't charge per reading. The new technocratic information regime aims to correct for that market failure by regulating access. If books become streams of data rather than objects for sale, they could be metered, rendering libraries superfluous or relegating them to vendor status. What we now think of as a library--a solid building full of books, ample tables, comfortable reading chairs--might look more like a modern office. [...] A patron would enter a credit card or debit card to access databases of text, music, video, or facts. The computer would charge by the minute or by the megabyte. [...] There would be no functional difference between your neighborhood library and a Kinko's or Barnes and Noble Superstore." (123-124)
The ALA's website offers information about intellectual property rights for librarians, but it is telling that the greatest resource they offer for librarians grappling with digital copyright issues is a “Copyright Guide Slide Chart,” a bit of cardboard that indicates whether or not a work has entered the public domain. Librarians have in the past played a considerable role in advocating for the public interest in copyright, and this role ought not to be abandoned at a time when the right of first sale is threatened by a “pay-per-view” model of information and the very existence of libraries as institutions for the education of the public may be in question.
References and Further Reading:
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2001). “Copyrights and copywrongs.” New York: NYUP.
Litman, J. (2006). “Digital Copyright.” Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
ALA, (2009). “Copyright.” <http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/wo/woissues/copyrightb/copyright.cfm>
Copyright Management Center, (2006). “Libraries and copyright.” <http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/library_issues.htm>
Association of Research Libraries, (2006). “Copyright and intellectual property policies.”
9 comments:
Everyone views things differently depending upon where they come from in the first place. Nicole you have very good points and they are delivered well. On the other hand, reading the following quote from PCWorld gives a different perspective.
"Opponents of the law say its ironclad protections against copyright infringement threaten to douse the fires of innovation and artistic expression heralded by the Internet age, replacing them with expanded and unprecedented corporate control. They describe a world where consumers have little choice over how they use the intellectual property they own, where movies, music, and e-books can be played on only one device, and where copying and sharing works is forbidden--making libraries obsolete."
When I read "unprecedented corporate control" my first inclination is to think that's probably accurate because in my opinion America is presently at the mercy of large corporations. Corporations control our economy , political system and media. Radically, yours.
Pruitt, Scarlett. (2002) Digital Copyright Law Under Scrutiny. Retrieved March 26,2009 from PC World Website: https://www.pcworld.com/article/92164/digital_copyright_law_under_scrutiny.html
It is precisely because of the lack of copyright laws that we even have libraries. A library is an important place in society because we value the free flow of information in the form of books. Without that long period of time when people were expected to copy any book they got their hands on for any period of time, in order to preserve it from chaos, there is no chance that society would support a library either with tithes or taxes. Certainly, if the concept were brand new it would never, ever be enacted. Saying no to libraries is definitely considered ignorant, even slightly immoral. But shutting down Pirate Bay? What were the great medieval scriptoriums but bit torrent seeds? Who could read Aristotle without them?
I think your post is very well written and raises issues that I had not considered. My only comment is that, as Nicole pointed out, it has never been legal to copy a library CD for personal use. Copying the CD would be like borrowing a book from the library and then making a photocopy for your own personal library. I know this law is regularly ignored or perhaps simply misunderstood. The Fair Use Act allows a person to make a copy of a CD they purchase for personal reasons (storage or listening to the CD in your car or at work) but does not allow copies to be made by a non-purchasing party.
Although copyright laws are confusing to many (myself included), your point that librarians need to advocate for the public interest in copyright is key.
Somebody should tell the University of Colorado about this: http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/media/duplication.htm
In a world of cynicism, I hold on to the belief that the exchange of information is more than just another way to turn a profit and that libraries have a long history of respect that will keep them viable, despite the technological changes we now face. Maybe I’m being too optimistic. Although one can argue that owners of intellectual property lose out on profits because of libraries, they also provide a type of indirect advertising. I know I’ve often read a library book, enjoyed the work by that author and then bought the next title in hardback. Maybe this is off-topic a bit, I am tiring of the latest “libraries will turn into sterile information terminals” prediction.
There are many companies out there looking to Copyright Law to increase their sales. The makers of video games do not like the multi-million dollar used game market (GameStop is one of the few retailers making a profit right now), and they are pushing all movie rentals and purchases to be streaming only. If you own the DVD, then you can watch it as many times as you want, and the makers of the DVD want to charge you per viewing. This is why libraries are so important, the concept that a person can read a book, without having to buy it, can be translated to other mediums. Which is why we should defend these rights, but we can do so and still meet the letter of the law.
Back to the copying of CDs--yes it is illegal to copy a CD or DVD that does not belong to you, but how many people will do it anyway? Is is really the responsibility of the librarian to police this action?
Yes, the librarian should adhere to copyright laws--but how exactly are our day to day functions affected by copyright law? Patrons can photocopy articles in magazines, and any part of a book, so where do we draw the line in how a patron is using the information they acquire in our library?
To me the thrust of the original post was that the right of first sale (to sell/rent your purchase) is under assault by corporations and needs to be defended. Libraries would be a place to view texts, but not take them with you. What a paradigm shift that would be! However, I think that issue will be mute in the not-too-distant future. Physical books will become a niche market, following cds, lps, and Cinerama (an old reference just because I can)into virtual (not THAT kind)oblivion. Last month I saw Amazon.com's founder showing off his latest ebook reader at $99 I believe. The day will come when people will carry all the books they have read and will read in the palm of their hand. Companies will digitally control media and free uses by others will be out the window, along with free lending by libraries. Technology has created a plethora of copyright issues. When corporations catch up to public useage, technology will be used to solve some of them.
Post a Comment