Download JCDL_bigposter_kre2.

The University of Wisconsin – Madison
School of Library and Information Studies
Social Informatics Working Group
sment of Access and Use Rights for Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources
Initial Results
RQ 1&2. Observed access and use restrictions
Kristin R. Eschenfelder, Ph.D. & Ian Benton, Research Assistant
Inquires to: [email protected]
Research funded by the ACRL Samuel Lazerow Fellowship and the ALA Carroll Preston Baber Award.
Abstract
This poster reports the initial results of a study investigating how technological protection measures (TPM), or digital rights management
systems, are used on licensed full-text digital scholarly resources from history, health sciences and engineering. The study results
describe the range and variation in access and rights restrictions experienced by a typical user of assessed resources. Results also
summarize librarian perceptions of the interactions between the restrictions and learning, teaching, scholarship and library management.
Methodological lessons learned are also described.
Introduction
Digitization may have a paradoxical effect on access to information. On one hand, digitization
increases remote access to, and possible uses of, information. But many fear that technological
protection measures (TPM) (or digital rights management) will allow Intellectual property owners
to place restrictions on access to, and use of, digital works. Some fear these restrictions will
undercut fair use and move consumers to a ‘pay per view’ society. Consumer digital media
such as DVDs and digital music have employed TPM to prevent unauthorized copying,
distribution or use of their digital products; but we have little systematic knowledge about the
extent to which vendors of scholarly digital works are using of TPM to control access to and use
of their works.
The purposes of this study are to investigate to what extent vendors of digital scholarly licensed resources are currently making use of TPM to
control access to and use of full-text materials or data sets, to begin to assess the impact of access and use restrictions on scholarship and library
management.
A social informatics perspective suggests that TPM will be deployed differently across types of scholarly materials based on variations in publishing
markets, information value, and the availability and ease of TPM tools. Social informatics suggests that TPM’s effect on scholarship is likely
complex. On one hand, TPM might encourage creation of digital products - increasing access and overall use of information; on the other hand,
access & use restrictions might inconvenience users (discouraging use) or disallow certain types of research uses (e.g., text mining). Social
informatics suggests that effects will likely vary by scholarly field because the domain specificity of research practices and use of digital materials.
Research Questions:
RQ1: What access restrictions (beyond campus IP range) would an average authorized user experience when using licensed digital resources?
RQ2: What use restrictions would an average authorized user experience when using licensed digital resources?
RQ3: Do license agreements and acceptable use statements describe the access and use restrictions observed through resource assessment?
(ongoing)
RQ4: What effects do librarians perceive that access and use restrictions have on teaching, learning, scholarship and library management?
Methodology
Data collection was done at a Carnegie I research institution. Research involved three stages: resource sampling, resource assessment and
interviews. Data was limited to resources from three disciplines: history (including art history), health sciences and engineering/computer science (228
total licensed digital resources). Resources were defined as a branded, licensed, network accessible publishing platforms including Web accessible
resources and CD-ROMs.
A combination of random and purposeful sampling was used to select resources for assessment (N=24 history; N=19 health; N=23 engineering:
Overall N=66) These samples represented a minimum 20% of the licensed digital resources for each discipline.
Resource assessment was performed using the typical use rights assessment protocol. This scenario-based protocol described how much of the
resource was accessed, and how to use each resource (i.e., printing, saving) Resource use comported with CONTU guidelines for fair use of materials
for e-reserves.
The following lists the presumed “access rights” and “use rights” against which actual access and use rights were accessed:
Presumed Access Rights: Access available from university registered IP address outside the library. No required login ID or passwords at the
resource level.
Presumed Use Rights: Viewing, printing, copy and paste, email, save copy to local disk, view local copy, print local copy, email local copy.
Twelve interviews with subject area librarians, in both one-on-one and group interview formats, identified resources to assess and explored concerns
about the interaction between access and use restrictions and teaching, learning, scholarship and library operations. Grounded theory analysis was
employed to develop themes.
1. Access restrictions were seen in all three disciplines stemming from license costs. Health sciences used restricted IP ranges (e.g., to specific buildings) to
reduce costs where history & engineering purchased CD-ROMs. Library passwords were also required to access certain parts of resources in engineering.
2. Hard TPM (strict print, save, email restrictions) are still the exception rather than the rule (as far as our methods reveal). Soft TPM however are prevalent
and may prove a significant barrier to some user populations and uses:
TPM by obfuscation: Non-standard/badly designed interfaces act as a barrier to use by concealing
otherwise possible use functionalities.
TPM by omission: In many cases, use functionalities (save, email) are not embedded in the resource
interface; rather, they are only possible with the use of browser and computer operating system functions. It
is unclear if publishers intend these functionalities.
TPM by polyglot: The hybrid format nature of many e-resources complicates some use functions (saving,
emailing) because of the large number of different files associated with a particular target document. This is
not a problem when a PDF alternative is offered.
TPM by frustration: Many e-books break up content into small chunks making printing and saving frustrating
- but not impossible.
3. TPM by frustration most often seen in e-book/text publication types; TPM by obfuscation, omission &
polyglot also seen in e-journals/proceedings
RQ3. Comparison with licenses & acceptable use statements
– analysis ongoing
RQ4. Librarian Perceptions of TPM Interactions with Teaching, Learning, Scholarship & Library
Management
•Because much use is now remote, librarians have limited information about effects of restrictions on use.
•Librarians perceive that TPM implementations are based on corporate user assumptions (e.g., one computer, one user, in an office) that do not hold true in
a university user environment with mobile users moving between computers and IP addresses, affiliate faculty, or even students on internships needing
remote access.
•Effects vary by user group because of different information format and currency needs and different information uses; therefore, different librarians groups
perceive different features as ‘restrictive.’
•TPM may complicate public computer terminal management and support for remote users: required plug ins, browser compatibility, updates.
Methodological lessons learned
•Resources vary in terms of the homogeneity of publication types they carry. For example, some
resources contain only include e-books; others contain a mix of publication types (including data sets).
Within-resource sampling should account for this variance.
•TPM usage may vary within a resource by publication type and by title. For example, Title 1 (see
figure) may be the only title in the resource to contain a TPM. This complicates assessment as one
must know which of many titles are likely to contain TPM; Further, different titles may contain different
restrictions.
E-Resource
Pub type 1: Conference Proceedings
Pub type 2: E-Journals
Pub type 3: E-Books
Title 1
Contains TPM
Title 2
No TPM
•Because of the low number of resources/titles employing hard TPM, purposeful sampling is likely more
effective than random sampling. Review of key professional lists & blogs for discussion of new TPM can identify resources.
•Resources with hard TPM are unattractive & therefore sometimes not licensed or not renewed. This removes them from the sample.
•TPM are a moving target; whether or not a given title has a TPM may change over time. Resource vendors experiment. Librarians lobby
resource vendors to remove TPM. Licenses are renegotiated.
Next steps:
Analysis is ongoing and several questions remain outstanding: How does TPM usage vary by discipline, by publisher type, by publication type, and by
information type? While our analysis found only a small number of hard TPM, more may be on the horizon; for example, the Society for Automotive Engineers
has announced plans to require restrictions. Referex (Engineering Information/Elsevier) & Knovel recently added TPM to selected titles. At a higher level, we
seek to explain why TPM are instituted in some circumstances and not in others.
Methodologically, we will move away from random sampling to all purposeful sampling driven by resources identified through practitioner lists, blogs and expert
interviews. We plan to expand our analysis to include more scholarly fields. We also plan to investigate how libraries are making use of TPM to control access
to and use of home grown digital collections.
Useful Resources
•INDICARE ( The INformed DIalogue about Consumer Acceptability of DRM Solutions in Europe) www.indicare.org
•ALA Office of Information Technology Policy DRM Policy Brief (2006) “Digital Rights Management: A Guide for Librarians” by Mike Godwin
http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/copyrightb/digitalrights/DRMfinal.pdf