Digital Rights Management & Libraries

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Articles Critique
Conclusions
References

Introduction

The relations between the human beings in the modern society are regulated by the variety of laws and rules. With the development of the social structure and the legal sphere of human activity, such phenomena as intellectual rights have acquired greater importance. At the same time, the fast development of technology and the Internet have made it vital for all spheres of human activity to be integrated into and updated about the latest technological advances. Thus, the topics of both intellectual property and modern technology become intertwined in the modern society. In this respect, the concept of the digital rights management (DRM) should be considered with special attention as the phenomenon to which publishers, libraries, and right owners attribute greater importance with the course of time. This paper critically analyzes three scholarly articles dealing with the topic of DRM and its importance for libraries in the modern society.

Background

So, DRM is a complicated phenomenon referring mainly to the protection of rights of the author and publishers in the process of the digital reproducing of scholarly articles and other publications. Bailey (2006) defines DRM as “a collective name for technologies that prevent you from using a copyrighted digital work beyond the degree to which the copyright owner (or a publisher who may not actually hold a copyright) wishes to allow you to use it” (p. 120). The DRM resorts to two basic methods of rights protection including digital marking and digital encryption, with the former requiring the personally identifiable information like fingerprint to gain access to a digital publication, and the latter asking for a digital key to be able to read an electronic or digital work. According to Bailey (2006), modern publishers and right owners of publications make their DRM measure stricter which adds to the difficulty of the licensed accessing the digital publications on the Internet (p. 116). Moreover, technological protection measures (TPM) are also important in the context of DRM (Eschenfelder, 2008, p. 205). Thus, libraries as intermediaries serving the purpose of transition of the digital works from author and publishers to readers are greatly concerned with the potential influence of DRM use for the libraries’ work (Bohner, 2008, pp. 598 – 599). The three further analyzed articles deal with the above stipulated aspects of DRM and consider them in detail.

Articles Critique

Arguments Compared

First, the articles under analysis include Strong Copyright + DRM + Weak Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia? By Bailey (2006), Digital rights description as part of digital rights management: a challenge for libraries by Bohner (2008), and Every Library’s Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources by Eschenfelder (2008). All the three articles deal with the topic of DRM but consider it in various contexts and present different arguments for the support of the authors’ ideas. First, Bailey (2006) examines the topic of the drastic development of copyright laws’ severity, the protective and often dangerous functions of DRM in library services, and “erosion of Net neutrality” (p. 116). According to Bailey (2006), all these points can serve as both dangerous phenomena for the further development of libraries in the society, as well as effective protective means against copyright law violations and illegal use of copyrighted and authorized scholarly publications.

Further on, Bohner (2008) goes on to discuss the potential pros and cons of the DRM introduction in the libraries of today. The author argues that DRM might have both positive and negative effects and is often treated by librarians in this dual manner. However, Bohner (2008) sees DRM as a primary step in the inevitable development of libraries in the future. In other words, digitalization of library resource database and the license agreements with license owners of publications might make it easier to operate the permanently increasing and growing library funds. Finally, Eschenfelder (2008) addresses the topic of technological protection measures (TPM) and distinguishes between soft and hard use restriction for digital content accessible through libraries and on the Internet.

Comparative Assessment

Strengths

The arguments compared present the wide scope for the critique of strong and weak points observed in the three articles analyzed. First, if the work by Bailey (2006) is considered, its major strengths include the comprehensive scope of the article and the theoretical support provided for the author’s arguments presented above. For example, instead of focusing on DRM exclusively, Bailey (2006) puts this topic on the context of copyright laws and the development of the Internet observed over the last decade. As a result of this comprehensive article scope, Bailey (2006) manages to identify DRM as the necessary evil, i. e. the phenomenon that is perceived hostilely nowadays but will be viewed as the basis for libraries’ development in future (p. 116).

The major strengths of the article by Bohner (2008) include the proper structure of the work that allows the reader to follow the development of the argument, the precise for on DRM importance for libraries, and the recommendations that the author presents for the further use of DRM in libraries (pp. 602 – 603). Thus, Bohner’s article presents a considerable amount of material for those willing to be introduced to the topic of DRM and libraries from the very beginning and gain detailed and deep knowledge in the area. The major strengths of the article by Eschenfelder (2008) include the consideration of DRM from another viewpoint, introduction of new terminology to the topic, examination of TPM and soft and hard use restrictions for digital sources accessing (pp. 205 – 206). Eschenfelder (2008) also addresses the potential effect of these aspects of DRM upon libraries and access to digital publications on the whole.

Weaknesses

Needless to say, apart from the strengths that articles considered also have certain weaknesses that concern mainly the argument support techniques, scholarly evidence, and the comprehensible use of terminology by the authors. Thus, the article by Bailey (2006) has the lack of the scholarly purpose as its major weakness. In other words, the author takes time to analyze the DRM together with copyright law and Internet development as dangers for the development of libraries that cannot afford holding hard and digital copies and often choose the latter, but does not consider the solutions to this problem. Moreover, the conclusion of the articles is way too weak as instead of summarizing the major findings of his research, Bailey (2006) states what his article does not argue about, thus making the readers confused about the very topic of the article and its findings.

Further on, Bohner’s (2008) article also has a minor weakness. This article is too narrow in its appeal to the target audience, i. e. to DRM and digital technology specialists as the article makes wide use of specific DRM-related terminology and abbreviations that are hardly comprehensible for ordinary readers with no special knowledge in the DRM area. The major weakness of the article by Eschenfelder (2008) is its narrow scope and focus on specific areas of activity like history, engineering, and health sciences. Such a narrow scope does not allow making generalizations on the basis of Eschenfelder’s (2008) findings and respectively limits the applicability of its findings in practice. In other words, the conclusion that the DRM practices are applicable for history library resources might be irrelevant for the sports literature. This is why the article by Eschenfelder (2008) is weak in its foundation and potential for generalization of its findings.

Conclusions

So, the articles analyzed in this paper prove the crucial importance of the topic of DRM for the development of the library science in the modern, highly technological and progressive, society. Defining DRM, the authors like Bailey (2006), Bohner (2008), and Eschenfelder (2008) address various aspects of this topic and the context in which it might be considered. Bailey (2006) examines the danger of DRM and copyright restrictions for the proper functioning of libraries. Bohner (2008) considers DRM from the basics, defines and categorizes DRM techniques, and assesses their potential influence on libraries. Eschenfelder (2008) studies DRM in the context of soft and hard use restrictions for digital publications. All three articles display strengths and weaknesses. Being strong in the theoretical support of their arguments, the authors focus excessively on either terminology or analysis and fail present recommendations or practical implications for use of their findings, but even despite this, the analyzed articles are proper sources of data on DRM and libraries.

References

Bailey, C. Jr. (2006). Strong Copyright + DRM + Weak Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia? Information Technology and Libraries, 25(3), 116 – 127.

Bohner, D. (2008). Digital rights description as part of digital rights management: a challenge for libraries. Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 598 – 605.

Eschenfelder, K. (2008). Every Library’s Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources. College and Research Libraries, 69(3), 205 – 225.

Click Here To Order Now!