Dictated into Arcturus

Last year at Internet librarian conference in London in November, I heard for the first time of Ranganathan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Ranganathan ) and his laws of library science. I was told about these by Sara Wingate Gray, one of the few librarians who is doing something really innovative and novel. I’ll blog about Sarah later, especially as she has given such tremendous service already to the open knowledge foundation. I am surprised and slightly disappointed that in nearly five years of talking with librarians are about the future and purpose of the library I have only just now heard of Ranganathan’s laws. These laws are critical to watch the library is about and without them the library is losing its way. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_laws_of_library_science )

These laws are:

1. Books are for use.
2. Every reader his [or her] book.
3. Every book its reader.
4. Save the time of the reader.
5. The library is a growing organism.

The Five Laws of Library Science are some of the most influential concepts in the field of library science. Since they were published in 1931, these five laws “have remained a centerpiece of professional values…”.^[4] In fact, these basic theories of Library Science continue to directly affect the development of this discipline and the service of all libraries.

You should read the articles on the laws immediately because they should underpin all discussions on what the library is or should be doing.

I was a noted to this yesterday by a tweet from “Librarian”:

@petermurrayrust flags up 1of the core librarianship-now issues. In my opinion all this digital DR-blah contravenes Ranganathan’s 1st Law!

Librarian is absolutely right. Here is the interpretation of the first law:

[edit] First law: Books are for use

The first law constitutes the basis for the library services. Ranganathan observed that books were often chained to prevent their removal and that the emphasis was on storage and preservation rather than use. He did not reject the notion that preservation and storage were important, but he asserted that the purpose of such activities was to promote the use of them. Without the use of materials, there is little value in the item. By emphasizing use, Ranganathan refocused the attention of the field to access-related issues, such as the library’s location, loan policies, hours and days of operation, as well as such mundanities as library furniture and the quality of staffing.^[4]

If the British library had asked “would Ranganathan have approved of DRM?” I think we can guess the answer. I have no idea what the motivation of the DRM is but I do not believe it is primarily introduced to increase the take up of their material and to increase scholarship. I am absolutely certain that it contradicts the first law.

I desperately need input from UK librarians. I know that they have read this blog because I met one last night at a concert. I need facts so that when I go to the British library I am sure of my ground. So far no UK librarian has given me any help; it has come from scientists and information scientists.

One contributor (deepThroat1, not from the UK) has alerted me to the awful nature of the technology involved:

You may be entertained and/or horrified by the complexity of their
transition from one version of Adobe DRM (which worked in Adobe 6 & 7)
to a new version (which only works in Adobe Digital Editions).

http://www.cilip.org.uk/groups/fil/conferences/pastevents/fil-liem1.ppt

Read this and weep. It shows the awful cost of introducing this type of technology. I don’t know the full story, maybe it was harder to introduce than they thought or maybe Adobe changed the ground from under them. That sort of thing happens when you have lockin to commercial products. Now they have changed to FileOpen. I bet they have similar problems. None of this helps the reader. It destroys scholarship. I’m going to write to them and find out the reasons why they introduced its technology.

Comments on this blog scraped into Arcturus

1. Andrew Walker is an Earth Scientist at UCL with whom I have previously collaborated in Cambridge. He has done a great job in unearthing the source of the rubric (see second link) and found that it’s the LAW. Even the wording. As Henry says, it’s still bananas, but it’s not the BL’s fault. For me it should be “More honoured in the breach than in the observance” However the main thrust of these posts is to challenge the need for DRMs and until I see that prescribed by Law, I’ll continue.
   
   1. Andrew Walker says:

      May 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm 

      The reason that all libraries use essentially the same wording is that these conditions are set out in law. Specifically, part 4 of The Copyright (Librarians and Archivists) (Copying of Copyright Material) Regulations 1989 – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891212_en_1.htm and the exact conditions are set out in schedule 2 – http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891212_en_3.htm . In this case, we need to hassle our MPs, the BL’s hands are tied.

   Thanks, Andrew. So all I need is an MP sympathetic to scholarship to whom I can take that part of the absurdity. I wonder where I can find one?
   

   But of course we shan’t be doing any governing in this country for some time.
   

Comments on this blog scraped into Arcturus

We are getting close to the the ‘Allo ‘Allo, Mission: Impossible, and Alice that the British Museum enforces on academic libraries and that they accept and pass onto us, the academics. Here are two extremely helpful comments from Henry Rzepa (not a librarian but a famous chemist I collaborate with).

Read this blog very carefully although it is should really be burnt before reading. The contents can damage your rationality centres. The most dangerous bits have been highlighted by me. They seem to be a litany. Henry has made a useful attempt to understand them but they are beyond logical interpretation. I think I will ask the BL which of their millions of works of fiction they were taken from.

1. Henry Rzepa says:

   May 9, 2010 at 1:53 pm 

   The BL Secure (for whom?) electronic delivery system allows me to download an encrypted file from the server (I have 14 days in which to do this), and use it in effect just once, to print the contents. I have tested this, and indeed what I cannot do is

   a) copy (for paste) anything
   b) print to anything except a real printer
   c) print more than once

   I certainly cannot eg. extract data from the document for re-use (say a set of molecular coordinates), or eg any DOI like links to other documents. Nor can I extract any metadata which might describe the document (this capability is summed up by saying that I cannot inject this document into a system such as eg Mendeley, in order to add value to the information.

   Finally, were the document to contain interactive components (for example Acrobat 3D objects), I could not interact with them (certainly not 14 days after the document is placed on the BL server). I would imagine that Acrobat 3D is not the only potential manner in which users might interact with documents in the future.

   So my question to the BL would be: how can I add value to the document you sent me in a digital sense if you only let me print one copy?

   May 9, 2010 at 2:05 pm 

   I set out below the terms and conditions that my own library asks me to undertake when requesting they provide me with one printed copy of an identified article held by the BL. These terms are an alternative to requesting the new Secure electronic delivery system from the BL. Whether these conditions are taken verbatim in a BL document, or whether they have been interpreted locally by my library I do not know and would welcome information on.

   “I declare that:
   (a) I have not previously been supplied with a copy of the same material by you or any other librarian
   (b) I will not use the copy except for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study and will not supply a copy of it to any other person: and
   (c) To the best of my knowledge no other person with whom I work or study has made or intends to make, at or about the same time as this request, a request for substantially the same material for substantially the same purpose.”

   Clause (a) taken literally means that no-one can make more than one request for any given document. If you have lost your only permitted (printed) copy from an earlier request, you are out of luck
   Clause (b) means I cannot make a copy of my copy to give to eg a student or colleague
   Clause (c) means that colleague or student cannot ask for their own copy, because I already have.

   So I ask the BL how I might be able to collaborate for scholarly purposes with a colleague or student from my institution, where all of us might wish to independently study at the same time a given scientific article obtained under these terms from the BL.

   [Henry continues] I put the literal string above into Google, and found that pretty much every university library in the UK quotes the conditions set out above. So it appears to be a specific document, and not one unique to each institution.

Scraped from BL site without permission but claiming fair use and public interest, and edited, into Arcturus

The terms in the British Library Direct (http://direct.bl.uk/bld/ViewTerms.do ) date at least from April 2005 so this DRM stuff has possibly gone on for most if not all of those 5 years. Here I quote selectively from the terms and conditions.

==============================

Terms and Conditions of Use of British Library Direct

[…]

Grant of Licence and Use of Data

You may print or download Content from the Service for your own personal use, provided that you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices.

You may not:

1. engage in systematic retrieval of Content from the Service to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database or directory without prior written permission from us;
   
2. add, copy, delete, display, distribute, modify, publish, reproduce, store, transmit, create derivative works from, or sell or license all or any part of the Content, products or services obtained from the Service in any medium to anyone, except as otherwise expressly permitted under applicable law or as described in these Terms and Conditions;
   
3. attempt to rectify, or permit any person other than us or our agents to rectify, any fault or inaccuracy in the Content
   
4. infringe or permit the infringement or otherwise prejudice the proprietary rights of us or the Rightsholders.
   

   […]
   

Document Ordering

All documents are supplied under licences from Rightsholders or their agent(s). We will charge a publication-specific copyright fee as set by the Rightsholder or their agent on all documents supplied in whatever format.  Not all of the material in our collection is covered by such licences.  Details of the specific copyright fees and excluded titles are available at www.bl.uk/catalogues/serials.html. The copyright fee will be in addition to any service or delivery charges for the supply of the document. VAT will be charged where applicable.  We will not supply material in our collection that is not covered by a licence.

[…]

Supply of Documents

The contents of documents supplied are copyright works. Unless you have the permission of the Rightsholder, the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd or another authorised licensing body, you may not copy, store in any electronic medium or otherwise reproduce or resell, any of the Content, even for internal purposes, except as may be allowed by applicable law unless the document was supplied by electronic delivery or immediate delivery in which case a single copy may be printed (which may itself not be further copied).

If the document was supplied by electronic delivery, it must be downloaded from our secure server within 14 days of us sending you a notification email. The document can be accessed only once. [PMR’s emphasis]

Some documents supplied by electronic delivery and immediate delivery can be stored locally on a hard drive for up to 3 years from the time and date given on the email notification or downloading, others will expire sooner. In all instances only one printed copy may be made. After 3 years, or sooner for some documents, view and print permissions will expire and you will no longer be able to open the document.

[…]

Scraped into Arcturus

Dan Hagon, who is a computer scientist not a librarian, has posted my FriendFeed a useful resource from the University of Glamorgan library system. This confirms many of the facts I have assumed. http://lcss.glam.ac.uk/lrc/ills/

==================================

Secure Electronic Delivery (SED)

University staff and researchers can request delivery of articles from the British Library’s rich collections directly to your PC. The documents are sent via a link from your e-mail, making them accessible to you anywhere with an internet connection. Electronic delivery eliminates postal delays and offers you a fast and efficient service. To register for this service, please complete the registration form (PDF) and return a signed copy […]

Requesting articles

• Download and complete our standard inter-library loan request form. For copyright reasons we need a hard copy of your signature, so please post the form (address above) to us or hand it in to the LRC.
• When we process your ILL request and send it to the British Library, they will scan the article/pages requested. The document created is a PDF document (a widely used electronic document format).
• The British Library will forward an e-mail from archie@bl.uk.
• Clicking on the link within the e-mail will download and open the document. Because the document is not attached to the e-mail, there is nothing to interfere with firewalls or clog up your inbox. Just click on the link while connected to the Internet to download the document. The link works best if you are using Microsoft Outlook as your e-mail client.
• The electronic copy will be available to download from the server at the British Library for 14 days, after which the file will be deleted.

Access and Printing

You are permitted to make only one paper copy from the electronic copy. We recommend printing it out when you first download it.

The items will be stored in My Bookshelf on Adobe Reader. We recommend you print your document on first viewing. Note, you will not be able to store your document on your PC.

Setting-up SED

Before receiving your document, it will be necessary to have Adobe Digital Editions installed on your PC. Adobe Digital Editions is a free eBook reader used to read DRM-protected PDF files and extends the e-Book capabilities that were integrated in previous versions of Adobe Reader and Adobe Acrobat.

Adobe Reader software is available as a free download. […]

The easiest way to do this is to download and print this test document from the British Library’s Secure Electronic Delivery website.

We strongly recommend that you do this before you try to download a document delivered by secure electronic delivery. We recommend you use Microsoft Outlook as your e-mail client.

PMR:

This shows some common features of the library culture.

• Copyright paralysis apparently requires a physical signature from the requester. Does it really? Who made that decision? And what terrible thing would happen if there wasn’t a physical signature. Note, of course that sending physical signatures is utterly incompatible with modern electronic practice.
  
• The MissionImpossible technology is absolutely right. The document will self-destruct in 14 days.
  
• There are at least two proprietary technologies required or promoted. [I don’t share the totality of Glyn Moody’s syllogism that everything Microsoft does is eveil and so is everyone who works with them, but you shouldn’t have to use Outlook]. The Adobe DRM machine is presumably the forerunner of the FileOpen.
  
• The SED is restricted to academics and researchers (i.e. evil students who are not to be trusted are not allowed to use it). So the DRM is because the BL does not trust academics and researchers.
  

I will have a little experiment and see what happens with the test document.

Dictated into Arcturus

There was a very well known television programme, Mission: Impossible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Impossible) which normally started with the secret agent listening to a tape recorder and finished with the words “this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds” after which smoke would come out of the tape recorder. The modern analogy of this is the digital rights management (DRM) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management ) practised by the British Library (BL).

Two days ago I asked if people could help by providing accurate information and I have been disappointed by the result. I appreciate that there is no requirement for anybody to help me in this mission but I have only asked for factual information, not for people to put their heads above the parapet.

So far – mainly through my own researching – I have found out that the BL imposes DRM through proprietary software. I believe, though I have no evidence, that by its nature this software severely restricts the type of information and the type of use that is transmitted. For example it is predicated to the use of printing on paper rather than using the power of the digital media. From the twittersphere I get confirmation that the DRM exists and is a problem, and that many librarians probably do not know about it. Having read the BL’s material on DRM it appears that documents propagated through this medium can only be read once. They can be forwarded so long as the forwarder does not read them and they can be saved on disk. I do not know whether they can only be saved on disk before this single act of reading and I intend to find this out.

DRM, which the Free Software Foundation suggests should be called Digital Restrictions Management, is a major threat to freedom. Its sole purpose is to restrict access to materials or to restrict their use. The major beneficiaries of DRM are those who wish to collect revenue or wish to restrict the flow of information, for example for political purposes. The immediate message of DRM is that the recipient of the information is not a responsible agent. It assumes that they intend to break rules and regulations and that they are so committed to this breach that technical methods must be used rather than normal human communication.

My particular case of inter library loans refers almost exclusively to employed staff and in research and learning organisations. When a loan is made it is known who the recipient is, almost always an academic or researcher. I would have hoped that by default this person was trusted to behave responsibly; the use of DRM implies that their natural behaviour is to steal and corrupt the trust. I cannot believe that there has been any significant breach of ILLs at any time. The material is valueless in monetary terms and if there was an attempt to “steal” material and repurpose it it would be immediately clear who was doing it and they could be brought to book.

The use of DRM on academic material transmitted by the BL to UK academics is an implicit statement that they cannot be trusted.

I shall be asking the BL what the motivation for the DRM policy is. To help clarify my questions I will speculate here and hope for feedback:

• The first motivation is cost recovery. The BL is tasked with recovering costs, just as was the Ordnance Survey. In that case Rufus Pollock of the Open Knowledge Foundation showed this to be a false economy for the country – the money brought in was far less than the opportunity and other costs to the wider economy. I would expect this to be the case here. I cannot believe that DRM’ing BL material brings in more money; it also costs money to enforce (and I’ll be asking that). And it must surely reduce the dissemination of material which is, after all, a (if not the) major purpose of the BL.
  
• The second is copyright. Copyright does not work in the digital age – there are too many major problems. It is probably the most important barrier to effective scholarship. There are two main approaches. One is to push for relaxation of copyright, both in practice and in the law and to reap the benefits of increased communication. There will be problems, and maybe law cases, but they will be an acceptable price. The other, which the BL pursues, is to assume that where there is the slightest uncertainty that copyright must be invoked (and the reader must be charged, even for free material); and this necessarily restricts the flow of information.
  

The problem is not just that the BL imposes these practices, but that they act as implicit and explicit guidelines to academic librarians. Academic librarians are paralyzed by copyright – there is always the risk that a 60-year dead author would rise from its grave and demand monetary and legal recompense for the free dissemination of their scientific writings. So academic librarians are often even worse than the BL. “Deep throat” informs me of bizarre restrictions which I suspect were added by overeager librarians keen to make sure nothing can possibly go wrong.

So I repeat my request for information about ILL and the BL (and local practices). I shan’t publish names if you don’t want. But if I can’t even get correct factual information then I am disappointed and disillusioned. By acquiescing to DRM for academic materials, you are bringing either 1984 or Fahrenheit451 to our future society.

Typed and Scraped from NAR site without needing permission into Arcturus

Here is the latest publication from our new Liberal MP for Cambridge, Julian Huppert. I’ll comment below:

Nucleic Acids Research, 2009, Vol. 37, No. 20 6716-6722
© The Author(s) 2009. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Genome-wide analysis of a G-quadruplex-specific single-chain antibody that regulates gene expression

Himesh Fernando¹, Sven Sewitz¹, Jeremy Darot², Simon Tavaré², Julian Leon Huppert³ and Shankar Balasubramanian^1,4,*

¹Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, ²CRUK Cambridge Research Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge CB2 0RE, ³Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge CB3 0HE and ⁴School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SP, UK

G-quadruplex nucleic acids have been proposed to play a role
in a number of fundamental biological processes that include
transcription and translation. We have developed a single-chain
antibody that is selective for G-quadruplex DNA over double-stranded
DNA, and here show that when it is expressed in human cells,
it significantly affects the expression of a wide variety of
genes, in a manner that correlates with the presence of predicted
G-quadruplexes. …

My point here is that Julian is a SCIENTIST. There aren’t many MPs who are scientists. I’m told there is only Julian. That’s a great pity, because our future must be based in large part on science. We have to innovate to stay competitive. Science is a major producer of new wealth. Science also teaches people to be logical and stay in touch with reality. There are conservation laws that say “you cannot make something out of nothing”. Most of us could have told Brown and the bankers that you cannot generate wealth out of thin air – it requires something to happen in the real world. To scientists that’s pretty obvious. The price of something depends on what people can afford. What they can afford depends on what wealth they create. Tangible things – materials, services, software, information, culture. But not meaningless leveraged derivatives.

The snippet above relates to work that enhances our understanding of how biological systems work. People like Julian collect DATA. Here is some DATA:

This text in this paper is OPEN ACCESS. The graphs are DATA. I can freely use the data. I can quote them in my own work. I can stick them on my web site. If Julian had chosen many other publishers I couldn’t. [I have minor quibbles – NAR uses CC-NC for no good reason and we should gently educate them.].

Can a single elected scientist rescue the country? Yes, if he can get the new government or ungovernment to sponsor science rather than destroy it. The logical case for supporting science is clear. The illogical one may prevail. I hope not.

Scraped from BBC site without permission into Arcturus

I am bewildered. I found a 2006 news item from the BBC which I quote in full (fair use, but without the picture – I would surely burn for that). In it the British Library (the same British Library that recently said that DRM’s “improve access”) said: the British Library said DRM must not “exert excessive control on access to information”. (2006). Here’s the item… make up your own minds. I can’t ================================= Last Updated: Friday, 3 February 2006, 09:57 GMT Libraries fear digital lockdown
By Ian Youngs BBC News   Going to the library may not just mean pulling a book off a shelf Libraries have warned that the rise of digital publishing may make it harder or even impossible to access items in their collections in the future. Many publishers put restrictions on how digital books and journals can be used. Such digital rights management (DRM) controls may block some legitimate uses, the British Library has said. And there are fears that restricted works may not be safe for future generations if people can no longer unlock them when technology evolves. The British Library spends £2m of its £16m annual acquisitions budget on digital material, mainly reference books and journals. This is going to be one of the significant challenges for us over the next few years Dr Clive Field British Library But by 2020, 90% of newly published work will be available digitally – twice the amount that is printed – according to British Library predictions published last year. Libraries are allowed to give access to, copy and distribute items through “fair dealing” and “library privilege” clauses in copyright law. But as publishers attempt to stop the public illegally sharing books and articles, the DRM they employ may not cater for libraries’ legal uses. “We have genuinely tried to maintain that balance between the public interest and respecting rights holders,” Dr Clive Field, the British Library’s director of scholarships and collections told the BBC News website. “We are genuinely concerned that technology inadvertently may be disturbing that balance, and that would be unhelpful ultimately to the national interest.” We have grave concerns about the potential use of DRMs by rightholders to override existing copyright exceptions Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance The All Party Parliamentary Internet Group is conducting an inquiry into DRM. In written evidence, the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (Laca) said there were “widespread concerns in the library, archive and information community” about the potentially harmful effects of DRMs. “We have grave concerns about the potential use of DRMs by rightholders to override existing copyright exceptions,” its statement said. In the long term, the restrictions would not expire when a work went out of copyright, it said, and it may be impossible to trace the rights holders by that time. “It is probable that no key would still exist to unlock the DRMs,” Laca said. “For libraries this is serious. ‘Threaten’ “As custodians of human memory, a number would keep digital works in perpetuity and may need to be able to transfer them to other formats in order to preserve them and make the content fully accessible and usable once out of copyright.” In its written submission to the group, the British Library said DRM must not “exert excessive control on access to information”. “This will fundamentally threaten the longstanding and accepted concepts of fair dealing and library privilege and undermine, or even prevent, legitimate public good access.” Fair dealing and library privilege must be “re-interpreted and sustained for the digital age”, it added. Dr Field said: “This is going to be one of the significant challenges for us over the next few years.”

Scraped from British Library site without permission into Arcturus

I have found the point in time when the British Library [changed or introduced] its DRM. I quote in full (without permission, claiming fair use) and then comment.

http://www.bl.uk/news/2009/pressrelease20091126.html

The British Library Improves Electronic Access with New DRM Platform from leading provider, FileOpen Systems

26 November 2009

Responding to customer demand, the British Library, supplying over 1.6m articles every year to researchers all over the world, has added FileOpen to its choice of delivery options via its Document Supply Service. FileOpen’s DRM technology will improve accessibility and extend the reach of the British Library’s vast resources.

The British Library’s Document Supply services have been at the heart of the national and international research community for 50 years, enabling users to exploit a wealth of information for the benefit of research. In the digital age increasing customer demand for electronic delivery, both remotely and immediately, has seen the number of Document Supply users requesting content delivered electronically raise to over 70%.

In an effort to provide customers with greater flexibility when receiving electronic documents, the British Library has teamed up with FileOpen Systems, a leading provider of a Digital Rights Management platform to the information industries. The FileOpen option offers users an alternative to the Library’s existing Adobe Digital Editions platform, enabling them to access copyrighted material in their Adobe PDF Readers without the need to download a new viewing application.

“The decision to add FileOpen to our Document Supply delivery options was driven by customer demand, they wanted a choice of electronic delivery options,” says Barry Smith, Head of Sales and Marketing at the British Library. “Customer feedback from the testing phase was very positive, and we are pleased to announce that we are now recommending FileOpen as our preferred electronic delivery option to all customers.”

“We’re delighted to be working with an organisation with such worldwide prestige as the British Library, and to be providing their customers with a robust, user-friendly solution for secure document access,” said Elizabeth Murphy, Vice President of Sales and Marketing at FileOpen Systems. “FileOpen Systems is the leading provider of DRM for Scientific, Technical, and Medical (STM) information, and continues to innovate to meet the high standards of that market.”

The FileOpen secure delivery option is now available to all Document Supply customers but is currently unavailable via British Library Direct or British Library Direct Plus.

 
Note the following points:

1. “Improves access”. I did not realise that DRM improves access.
   
2. “driven by customer demand”. Where are the customers who are demanding DRM?
   
3. “DRM technology will improve accessibility”. Do they really mean “accessible” as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessible_publishing.? Because my “deep throat” informant has suggested that the DRM makes the document almost inaccessible.
   
4. Can the document by understood by an unsighted person? If so how?
   

The idea that DRM improves anything other than commercial and quasi-commercial revenues is pure Newspeak. The firemen in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 started fires – of books – rather than stopping them. DRM is in the same category – it prevents people reading things.

I think that if my “deep throat” saw the words “user-friendly” about the system used to deliver their ILL material they would explode.
====================== see also comment ==============
Response to “When the British Library “improved electronic access with DRM””

1. secretlondon says:

   May 8, 2010 at 3:25 pm  (Edit)

   Adobe Digital Editions was also DRMed. I got some papers from the BL via inter library loan and they were awful. Lasted 14 days, restricted printing, limited to the number of devices you could open them on. I really wished I hadn’t chosen electronic delivery!
   I think this is a _change_ of DRM, not the new introduction. I don’t know when they started requiring Adobe Digital Editions, but this clearly replaces it.

Dictated to Arcturus

I have made a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to the University Library (UL) in Cambridge asking them for the policies, practices and technology that apply to electronic materials supplied by the British Library (BL). You may ask why I didn’t simply mail or ring up the University Librarian (our group has had cordial and productive links with the UL over several years including JISC funded projects such as SPECTRa and SPECTRa-T). This is because I want the replies to be a matter of public record at the receiving end of material from the BL. I wish to find out which policies have been dictated by the British library, which have been negotiated between the two institutions and which have been introduced by the UL.

The precise question can be found on the whatdotheyknow site run by MySociety.

Digital Rights Management and regulations for material supplied by the British Library

I copy it below in full, but first let me give my motivation. I have been talking with a number of people including a senior UK academic scientist, who believe that the BL imposes a totally unacceptable policy of digital rights management (DRM). I have not personally requested material that has been delivered under this system and I do not wish to reveal confidential information from my informants nor do I wish to categorically assert practices which I have only heard at second hand. Therefore I have made a request to my own university for their practices and policies, and used the freedom of information process so that it is visible to the whole world. it can be compared with practices at other institutions. I would be grateful for input from other academics and librarians if they are prepared to enter the political arena.

I have given a summary of what I believe to be the practices as reported by my informants. If this is substantially correct then I believe the DRM practice of the BL to be totally unacceptable, and will start to campaign for it to be changed as soon as possible.

FOI request:

Digital Rights Management and regulations for material supplied by the British Library

I am requesting information about Digital Rights Management and
regulations imposed by (a) the British Library (BL) and (b) the
university on electronic material supplied by the BL. I am doing
this through FOI because I am simultaneously asking the BL many of
the same questions and I wish all replies to be public.

The issue is epitomised by Interlibrary loans (ILL) where a reader
requests a copy of a book or journal article obtainable from the
BL. From experience at other Universities it appears that policies
have recently been introduced that impose Digital Rights Management
(DRM) on the material and there are other restrictions. I believe
that these represent a serious reduction in academic freedom but I
need to know from you and the BL the precise details. I have
therefore provided a lettered/numbered series of questions. I would
be grateful for correction of any errors on my part. If the
regulations are published openly by the UL I would be grateful for
the URL. In all answers I would like to know which regulations or
practices are imposed by the BL and whether these are negotiable or
have been negotiated between the institutions.

(a) Can you provide the regulations for copying and reuse if a
reader obtains a physical copy of a book or article from the BL (i)
out of copyright (ii) in copyright. For example can a reader “make
unlimited copies of a work out of copyright for their research and
share the work with collaborators”

(b) what is the procedure when the library or reader obtains an
electronic copy of the material? My current understanding is that
the BL’s policy, regulations and technology means that:
(i) The material is DRM’ed, i.e. cannot be read without special
software supplied only by the BL and which does not run on all
platforms.
(ii) the material can only be viewed ONCE (i.e. unless the reader
does everything necessary at first reading they are unable to
re-read the document once closed.
(iii) that the material is only available for a very limited period
and may not be saved to disk or cut-and-pasted. It may only be
printed and then only once. If the reader cannot print it first
time they are never able to do so.
(iv) there are severe restrictions on to whom (if anyone) the
material may be shown to.
(v) these restrictions apply even to out-of-copyright material

I would be grateful for the exact wording supplied to readers.

If any of my concerns about DRM and restricted access are
substantially correct I would like to know:
(vi) when the policy was introduced
(vii) whether the BL applies a universal policy to all libraries or
whether Cambridge has unique conditions
(viii) whether the regulations and technology as presented to a
reader in Cambridge have been amended from those imposed by the BL
and if so (in detail) how.
(viii) whether the UL has raised the question of the BL’s DRM and
regulations with any governing or advisory body in the University
and if so whether the discussion is publicly minuted.

I appreciate that this is a substantive question and an unusual way
of raising it but there is increasing public concern about the BL’s
DRM and it is critical to have accurate information. Please note
that all answers are public and will be publicised.