> At 8:30 AM 10/6/97, George Pitcher wrote:
> >Following the recent messages about the security issues surrounding electronic
> >delivery, I would like to mention the work done by the SCOPE Project.
> >
> >We have developed a system which offers the following features:
> >
> >Read only documents
> > These cannot be copied, 'captured' or saved/exported in a usable form.
> >
Tony Barry replied:
> The key commbination Command/shift/3 will copy what is on the screen into a
> graphics file in PICT format.
>
> Numerous utilities exist to cappture part of the screen into a graphics file.
>
> All OCR programs will work with graphics files.
>
> It would be laborious but I would expect to be able to extract what I
> wanted to and email it where I wished.
You can and you would be breaking the law.
This has to be understood in context, as security features always have to
be. In the context of the security of our homes, we are content with a far
less than perfect system. We put locks on the doors but glass in the
windows, so you can walk in through the windows and walk off with my
hi-fi. I can install alarms; doesn't stop you doing it, just makes a
noise as you do so. Few of us resort to 24-hour armed guards, because we
don't have enough of value to protect. But we'd have a hard job insuring
our property if we refused to put locks on the doors...
The context of George's system, which may not have been clear from the
message thread, is the provision of copyright material to students in a
particular course in an electronic reserve or on-demand publishing
context. He has obtained a licence from the copyright owners to make the
material available under certain conditions, including restricting access
to the course members only. Quite properly, he is installing systems of
various kinds to attempt to keep within his licence terms. These systems
are not perfect, but they are sufficient to protect the copyright owner's
property to the extent that the copyright owner will agree to make it
available. There are many circumstances in which such software is useful.
> If it ends up imposing too many restrictions on the use of the document it
> is self defeating. In the academic world the aim of the game is
> recognition to the author. Imposing impediments to copying and
> dissemination defeats this.
I think this is a different argument. I tend to agree with you that the
way we currently give away our intellectual property in scholarly journal
articles and then have to buy it back, including the necessity for systems
like George's, is rather daft. It remains true that we have done so in the
past, and if we want to use that material we have to obey the rules. It is
also unfortunate but true that changing the current system is very hard
indeed!
> No doubt there will be niche commercial markets where this might be useful
> but not in universities.
No, there are plenty of circumstances in universities where such software
is needed. One general rule I think it should always obey is making
provision for some fair use, and I think the Cactus stuff does pretty well
in that direction.
--
Chris Rusbridge
Programme Director, Electronic Libraries Programme
The Library, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
Phone 01203 524979 Fax 01203 524981
Email [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|