Apologies for cross-posting.
LACA (Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance) is looking for evidence
from the library community to illustrate its submission to the Gowers
review of copyright on the 3 areas below. Evidence from the "coal face"
will be extremely valuable but for reasons of practicality LACA is not able
to acknowledge individual responses:
Specific evidence is needed re different collecting societies or agencies
that libraries deal with concerning transparency, aggressive behaviour,
unreasonable tactics, burdensome statistical reporting, inefficiency, and
unfair demands. We need the name of the society, when the incident (if it
was one) occurred, and name of library (helpful if we can use name of
library - if not we won't but we still need it in order to get back to them
if needed
Digital Rights Management Systems (DRMS) and Technological protection
Measures (TPMs): specific examples of how libraries and users have been
frustrated in using products protected by DRMS and TPMs eg. barriers to
uses allowed by exceptions and limitations including fair dealing and
exceptions for visually impaired, barriers to uses by people with other
disabilities (eg. learning difficulties, dyslexia, hearing difficulties)
barriers to migrating content for digital preservation , and barriers
imposed when DRM or TPM becomes obsolete (important - need to know how many
years before it becomes obsolete) re use with different or upgraded
hardware and software or having to keep old h/ware and s/ware in order to
run product. Naming and shaming of product important here.
Disability exceptions: specific examples of instances which occurred in a
library of barriers encountered caused by copyright protection not allowing
the creation of accessible copies of the work with regard to people with
disabilities other than visual impairment or inability to hold a book
(which is provided for under visual impairment exception) eg. learning
difficulties and dyslexia, hearing impairment. Name of library important
here we need it in case we need to get back to them later but we should be
told if we can use the library name - it would be helpful to do so however.
Obviously at this stage user should be anonymised but we might want to get
back to the library to ask if user would be willing to be a witness at
later stage esp if a good scenario.
All responses on these three issues should be sent to cdpa-
[log in to unmask] by Friday 24th February. Many thanks for your support.
|