Information Scotland The Journal of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland ISSN 1743-5471 Issue contents | Journal contents | About the online edition of the journal December 2006 Volume 4(6)

Copyright

The copyright conundrum

Librarians seem to be the ‘unpaid foot-soldiers in the copyright war’, which is absurd, says Donald Maclean.

‘Librarians are unsure of the working of the Act, and interpretation of the 1988 Act is difficult. We have received conflicting advice on the legality of email as a declaration by users. But this does not mean that a blanket licence to CLA at a price of 2.8M pounds per annum provides the best solution for the NHS.’

This paragraph from the NHS website articulates and highlights much of the confusion, complexity and expense which is prevalent in the field of copyright. Librarians often find themselves in the firing line when it comes to copyright issues, from rights owners on one side, and from end-users on the other.

Librarians are traditionally associated with copyright enforcement. Recent decades have seen librarians move into pastures new with the advent of web-based and digital resources. It is curious that more librarians do not question their traditional role within the copyright conundrum.

Authors write the materials, publishers publish them. The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) protects authors’ and publishers’ rights, and licences organisations to enable them to copy and reproduce materials within limits. So far, so good. However, complications arise when discussions begin about what can actually be copied, how, who by, how it will be stored, what it will be used for and how many?

If, as an organisation, you don’t have a CLA licence, you can be prosecuted and fined heavily. The CLA can give you notice that they will inspect your premises and ensure that copyright law is being adhered to by all institutional staff. Any failures can incur penalties ‘approaching six figure sums’.
This is a heavy institutional responsibility to bear, and begs the simple question, why? Copyright legislation is a protectionist measure for a portion of the business community who happen to produce creative materials: “CLA is responsible for looking after the interests of rights owners over the copying of books, journals, magazines and periodicals.”

It would be very hard to argue a case against the rights of owners. Authors and publishers have every right to expect just rewards for their efforts and investments. It could be argued, however, that it is not fair to expect librarians to be the unpaid foot-soldiers in the copyright war. Why should they be enforcing laws which “look after the interests of rights owners”, and be held to account if they don’t get it quite right? The situation is absurd.

Most institutions adhere rigidly to copyright legislation, and expend a great deal of time and expense in doing so. In the education sector this leads to a massive amount of red tape, uncertainty and abandoned projects. It has a negative effect on learning.

There is an alternative, and the music industry is already well down the road to embracing it. Not so many years ago4 music publishers were acting tough, threatening users with court action if they didn’t toe the line. Music was being downloaded and shared in vast quantities. The fight against piracy failed. The music industry decided to fight this type of piracy by using the available technology and legitimising it. And so Napster and iTunes were born.

Is it asking too much of the publishing industry to get their house in order, and embrace the technology by legitimising e-book downloads? A quick search on ebay for ‘e-book’ brings up nearly 3,000 results: I wonder if all these titles are legitimate?

Instead of using the big CLA stick, it would seem much more logical to use the technology to allow simple, modularised, cheap, tamper-proof downloads. You should be able to buy a book, a chapter, a page, even a quote. The technology already exists that would render the downloaded file read-only, and protect against copy and illegal distribution. The determined hacker will always manage to find a way in, but these are books we’re talking about here; would there really be a market for a ‘hacked’ book? If it was available cheaply online, I would argue not.

In the area of physical copying, it would seem more logical to tax, or meter, the machinery rather than having to process paperwork for each transaction. This problem will presumably diminish as electronic text becomes predominant.

Such a system would remove librarians, to a large extent, from the copyright conundrum, and ensure that users easily access the texts they need, and also ensure that authors get their rewards. It would also shift the balance of responsibility from librarians to the producers and sellers of materials and copying equipment. It seems crazy to hold a librarian responsible for copyright enforcement, but not the maker of an expensive and highly efficient copying machine.

It could be argued that people would lose their jobs if the copyright issue became irrelevant, or even diminished. But I don’t think the copyright issue will ever go away. Many might also argue that copyright is a librarians’ issue and always will be. I came into the profession to help to encourage and support learning, to encourage the use of materials to spread knowledge. I did not come into it to hinder the process, to become embroiled in red tape and to protect the rights of a group who are powerful and influential enough to protect themselves.

Donald Maclean is Librarian, Perth College

Information Scotland Vol. 4(6) December 2006

Information Scotland is delivered online by the SAPIENS electronic publishing service based at the Centre for Digital Library Research. SLAINTE (Scottish libraries across the Internet) offers further information about librarianship and information management in Scotland.