Universal Availability of Publications Core Programme

Special Interest Group Meeting and Workshop
Athens, 20 October 1997

Summary of papers and discussions

Dominique Spaey, the co-ordinating partner of the Project, followed with an introduction to the COPEARMS Project. At this point Judy Watkins suggested that, as many of the participants were from outside Europe, it might be useful for her to give a brief overview of the structure of the European Commission.

Judy Watkins talked about ERMS (Electronic Rights Management Systems) as a practical solution and outlined the fears of publishers, libraries and other intermediaries. She concluded by pointing out that terminology needs to be redefined if we are to move successfully into the new electronic age.

ERMS security was the theme of the presentation given by Gérard Eizenberg, one of the other partners of the consortium. He has considerable experience of Information Technology security and pointed out some examples of possible threats to security targets. He outlined the classes of security objectives and concluded by suggesting areas of security assistance that is available.

After a short break another partner, Séverine Dusollier, talked about the legal issues. She outlined the legal requirements of ERMS, intellectual property, data protection, evidence, consumer protection and identifiers.

Dominique Spaey outlined COPEARMS services and gave detailed descriptions of the package on offer. He suggested that any interested organisations complete a questionnaire which were available at the meeting. A copy of the questionnaire is included with the proceedings.

Unfortunately, due to work commitments, Ioannis Pitas was unable to attend the meeting but has provided a copy of his presentation.

George Pitcher's presentation on SCOPE'S `CACTUS' ECMS gave rise to significant discussion.

A delegate asked if the project could constitute a breach of article 9.2. of the Berne Convention, since the project did not give students an access to works. Séverine Dusollier replied on his behalf and said that, since the Berne Convention states that it is a matter for Member States legislation to provide for exceptions to copyright, provided such exceptions do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. Another article allows the utilisation of protected works for teaching and educational purposes. But this article does not establish a right of the students to have free access to works.

He was asked how he planned to convince publishers and rights owners that their work would be secure and he replied that he hoped to do this by demonstrating the product. When asked what incentive there was for academics and tutors to use the service, as most lecturers are not always aware that they are infringing copyright, he said that part of the service was to educate people in this direction. At the moment, during the one year experimental period, costs are being absorbed by the library but, ultimately, it will be up to the individual institution to decide who pays. At present the material is also kept on the shelves in the library.

When asked about fair use he said that this had been looked at but they had compromised in order that some progress could be made. The technical issues have been sorted out but the political issues have still to be resolved. The results of the project will be available at the end of the first semester in February.

Vassilis Travlos was asked if he would give a short presentation on the VENIVA Project, one of the projects which has received assistance from COPEARMS. The project had received 2 days of multilevel advice followed by technical meetings where they had been provided with more technical advice and software. Further information on VENIVA is included

Due to time restraints Judy Watkins did not present the SEDODEL Project but her presentation has been included.

The afternoon session was dedicated to the workshop and discussion, of which a full report is included at the end of the proceedings.

Judy Watkins closed the meeting by thanking the speakers for their presentations, IFFRO for helping to publicise the event and Pauline Connolly for her part in the organisation.

Workshop Discussion

Which scenario is the most probable outcome? There is a significant move towards publishers allowing their material to be put into electronic format, especially in the case of journals and periodicals. The market is slightly different for books but, eventually, there will not be a distinction - there will merely be electronic publications. Are we all getting too excited about the media of electronic format? Is print on paper still the best medium? The publishing industry have not thought enough about the way the market will develop. From their point of view electronic distribution is more efficient, leading to print on demand. If the necessary securities are in place publishers could find electronic publications are much cheaper to produce. But, will there always be a need for academic publishers? Quality control could be dealt with by universities, thus making publishers unnecessary. There may be a new role for publishers and they should review their marketing strategies. Another suggestion was that authors will always go to publishers and make use of their commercial skills. Publishers will invest in the product and market it accordingly.

Commercial organisations are also pressing publishers for digitised rights but publishers are afraid of electronic material being available to the world. Electronic Rights Management Systems are trying to address the problem and technically they can solve it. However, if publishers put too much protection on material, that material will not sell. Alternatively, if you can access a digital archive why bother to buy it in the first place. It is interesting to note that some software manufacturers have ceased to produce software in copyright protected form.

Authors will not allow work to be published electronically without remuneration and people should not expect to have free access to information. Some large publishers have their own distribution systems whereby rights owners get their respective fees.

Which is the most desirable?
Rights holders should not be forced to give up their rights but should be able to choose whether or not they give access in a digital environment. It is a competitive world and some authors may want to give full access as that may be the only way that their work will be read. In some cases simple market pressures will be sufficient to ensure that access is given and statutory measures will not be necessary. Rights holders are, however, afraid that they will not be sufficiently remunerated for access to their work and are also wary of what other people may do with it. Authors do write to make money and people should be prepared to pay for information.

Commercial organisations make a considerable amount of money by charging for information. Libraries now charge for music and videos and this must be a step in the right direction.

Do the majority of people still visit libraries or do they prefer to use the Internet? Most of the information on the Internet is free but there is no guarantee that it is all factual. However, despite not always being trustworthy, it is a useful resource for information. Government information, especially, is excellent and the Internet is as good a place as any for accessing this information. A further point made was that less developed countries may not have access to information only available on the Internet.

Information is an economic good and there is a huge disparity worldwide. Information is vital for economic growth but if there is no market for it the value of the information will not be recognised. If we recognise that information is an economic good it has to be paid for. The cost of producing information has to be earned by return - the cost of reproducing information is nil. We are discussing issues that have always been there, not just since electronic media has become an issue.

Can and should existing rights and exceptions be used in a digital environment?
This particular point provoked a great deal of debate, summarised as: It will be difficult to monitor fair dealing in an electronic environment.
There can be a concept of fair dealing but not as it stands with paper copies.
Forget about fair dealing - it is not fair to copy part of a CD-ROM; it is not fair to `cherry pick' 10 articles from 10 learned journals.

Researchers are not yet used to judging how much of their information they should make accessible on the Internet. In a published world `good' journals carry much more weight than `not so good' journals. Information on the Internet, although easier to access, may not always be refereed. Users may, however, use paid for information merely to validate what has already been found free of charge. Another point raised was that if text books and academic journals were cheaper people may be more prepared to buy them. Also, library resource sharing projects mean that libraries buy less copies which pushes up the price.

It is important to distinguish between the free flow of information and the flow of free information.

Should a `browsing right' be introduced? If readers are allowed to see part of a publication on screen they may be encouraged to buy it. People are used to browsing in bookshops and in public libraries, so it is not a new concept. Too much browsing would erode the rights of the rights holder especially if done over a network.

What is the definition of browsing? One limitation could be by time; it could be just the dust jacket that is shown; academic journals could show only the index, contents or abstracts. There could be a three-step test for the definition of browsing: brief; authorised; no economic loss to the rights owner.

If the user is free to browse electronic material when does the user start to pay? It would be up to the individual publisher. But then, the publisher may cease to exist in a truly electronic environment.

Should digital information be based on a pay per view/pay per use system or on a fixed predetermined price based on a realistic prediction of probable use?
The cost is ultimately going to be borne by the taxpayer if libraries enter into agreements with publishers. Many felt that this cost should be passed on to the end user whereas some felt that students should not be charged. Rights holders should not have to stand the cost of free access for students and students should be prepared to pay for information acquired outside of the lecture room. One solution could be to allocate a specific book allowance to each student but, again, the cost would probably have to be borne by the taxpayer.

Pay per view or a flat fee will be a decision for commercial publishers. The author also has a right and this should be taken into consideration i.e. pay per view. The author will need to trust the publisher to make the right decision to ensure that he is properly remunerated.

As a library environment is controlled, is an ERMS the best solution? Licensing methods can control copyright in paper format - could these also work in an electronic environment. If legal deposit libraries have copies in digital form, who will be allowed to access the copies? One solution would be to only allow access to items that are no longer in copyright.

Libraries have an important role to play in the search for information. The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) initiative is a great opportunity for libraries, facilitating the finding of information. A recent Press Release on this initiative has been included in the proceedings.

Conclusion

Neither scenario in its entirety is either likely or desirable. Whilst rights owners would wish their work to be accessible they do not wish to lose control. A huge amount of effort is put into producing the information and rights owners should be remunerated accordingly.

Browsing must be properly defined before a browsing right can be introduced. It was widely agreed that commercial publishers are the ones who should determine whether information is accessible on a pay per view/use system, bearing in mind the needs of the rights owners.

Licensing will probably be the way forward but the library community needs to be educated in order to understand the legal aspects of entering into agreements that may sign away their rights. Although ERMS could be a solution in a controlled library environment decisions still have to be made regarding the necessary level of protection.

Communication and co-operation between all parties is essential if the divide is going to be successfully bridged.

Pauline Connolly
November 1997