Non-Profit Org Claims Rights In Library Catalog Data 152
lamona writes "The main source of the bibliographic records that are carried in library databases is a non-profit organization called OCLC. Over the weekend OCLC 'leaked' its new policy that claims contractual rights in the subsequent uses of the data, uses such as downloading book information into Zotero or other bibliographic software. The policy explicitly forbids any use that would compete with OCLC. This would essentially rule out the creation of free and open databases of library content, such as the Open Library and LibraryThing. The library blogosphere is up in arms . But can our right to say: "Twain, Mark. The adventures of Tom Sawyer" be saved?"
OCLC Didn't Create the Records (Score:5, Informative)
OCLC stores the bibliographic records in its database, but it did not create the vast majority of them. The records were created by catalogers at thousands of libraries. These libraries contribute their records to OCLC so that they can be shared with other libraries, but never do they grant OCLC ownership of the records.
Google Books (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:5, Informative)
CDDB again (Score:2, Informative)
OCLC can try, but really now: it's best not to fuck with librarians.
We come from an unbroken lineage that doesn't simply date back to recorded history: we're the ones that RECORDED recorded history in the first place.
Cross us, OCLC, and you'll soon be as significant as the dust surrounding the jars that housed the Dead Sea scrolls. Bitches.
Re:They can claim.... (Score:2, Informative)
> > In other words: no, OCLC doesn't own the books, or the facts about them, but they do own the database.
> Sort of true, the copyright in this case *only* applies to when original work incorporated
> in to the collection of facts, making the "collection" a copyrighted entity.
In order to clear up your confusion here, I'd have to explain to you what a MARC record is, but believe me, you do *NOT* want to know about MARC records if you can possibly avoid it. (I certainly wish I could erase the knowledge from *my* memory.) So just trust me: OCLC, although they're being pretty overbearing, are nonetheless probably within their rights here.
But the article summary is blowing the ramifications all out of proportion, because most libraries don't use the OCLC service anyway (though many do), so it's not like they're the only place to get bib records. Far from it. A lot of libraries just use mutual Z39.50 catalog sharing agreements with other library systems and maybe get the occasional record from the LOC catalog. Also, a lot of book vendors these days will send you MARC records along with your order. Baker & Taylor, for instance, provides this service. For them, it's a complementary service that helps them sell books, so they don't need to make money on the records the way OCLC does.
Re:They can claim.... (Score:2, Informative)
They can want that as much as they want, it ain't gonna happen. There are too many other sources.
Granted, OCLC is probably the largest single centralized source. But Z39.50 completely obviates the advantages of centralization anyway, because your cataloging software, if your ILS is even vaguely modern, automatically queries your various sources in turn until it either finds the record or runs off the end of the list. Actually, some of them query all your sources in parallel and aggregate the results into a list of records you can choose from. The one we use does that.
So you just put twenty or thirty large library systems with open-access catalogs on your list of Z39.50 sources, and Bob is your uncle.
Re:Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:2, Informative)
> something smaller, faster, and free-er that uses the Internet.
It's called Z39.50. It's not a centralized one-big-database source of records. It's a protocol (err, or a suite of protocols; Z39.50 itself is technically one protocol, but it's often used in conjunction with SIP2 and NCIP...) that libraries use to conveniently share catalog records with other libraries. You can have multiple Z39.50 sources, so you don't need One Big Source For All Records; you just need a number of small and medium-sized sources that collectively have a lot of records. Mutual sharing agreements are fairly common, and some library systems just freely share with everyone unconditionally.
Re:Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:2, Informative)
So far, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any noticeable decline in library usage. Most library directors track their circulation statistics religiously and expect them to go up every year without fail.
Library usage *details* have shifted over the years, in terms of what exactly people get out of libraries... Reference materials usage, for instance, is *way* down (unless you count the internet as a reference material, which many libraries do... this seems a bit disingenuous to me, not because the internet can't be used as a reference material but because in practice approximately 0.0000000437% of library patrons use it that way... but it's a fairly common position for libraries to hold on paper, that the internet is primarily a reference source or service). Biographies are down too. But other things are way up, not least audio-visual materials. (DVD circulation has absolutely *exploded* in the last five years, you simply would not believe. I don't know how people find the time to watch so much video content, unless most of the population either never sleeps or doesn't work for a living.)
But OCLC is not synonymous with libraries, and libraries will not rise or fall with OCLC. Many libraries don't even use their service.
> The way I see it, it's definitely in OCLC's best interest to embrace
> the internet and help libraries gain some popularity.
I don't think libraries need OCLC's help with popularity. That would be kind of like Singapore getting financial advice from Bangladesh.
Re:DDS (Score:1, Informative)
> While i am against IP in most cases , that doesn't mean IP doesn't exists. It's a reality , whether we like it or not.
I think his point is that the very phrase "intellectual property" is a lie.
Intellectual means a thing of the mind. An idea or creative expression in your mind is not something you own; you can only own tangible things. Your brain is yours, sure, inasmuch as it makes sense for a thing to own itself.. but in order to be "property," you have to put the idea or expression into tangible form.
A book is property. A CD is property. A painting is property. A computer disk is property. BUT since a copy of the content can exist in my mind as well as yours, you can't "own" the copy in my mind. If I use my mind to transfer the content from your tangible object to a tangible object of my own, then I can be said to own the "intellectual property" too.
So what you'd be saying is that, even though I bought the paper, the pen, the typewriter, the computer, somehow YOU actually own MY copy despite the fact that I expended my own money and labor and made it myself.
That's why "copyright" is a reality, but "intellectual property" is a lie.