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?"
Take back the data! (Score:4, Interesting)
Jeez, has everyone here gone soft? Download it, repackage it, and give it to your friends. To hell with the law! I'm not saying screw over the authors but if it's been out more than 15 years, to hell with corporate interest then. Practice an act of civil disobedience. And as Mark Twain would say, "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." Tell these corporate bastards we're not going to pay anymore. It's their turn to give something back, rather than just take, take, take.
Re:Take back the data! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Tell these corporate bastards we're not going to pay anymore."
Completely within your rights as they stand now. Don't buy and don't receive -- simple.
"It's their turn to give something back, rather than just take, take, take."
They already do, it's called exchange. What is it you're willing to give them for their work? Oh yeah -- "To hell with the law!".
I've been wondering about them. (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been wondering what was going to happen to OCLC in the Internet age. I have thought it was strange that up until now, they really have been under the radar. Sounds like that's going to change.
Then there is Chemical Abstracts [cas.org] that lives in the same town that I'm pretty sure has much more money than OCLC. That's another Internet fight.
Import Library of Congress to Evergreen or Koha (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of the problems caused by OCLC can be avoided by using better tools. Evergreen [evergreen-ils.org], Koha [koha.org] are both feature-rich, open source integrated library systems. They're not just competitive, in many cases they are just plain better.
Another danger point is Metalib. The Z39.50 profiles are about the only advantage there, aside from the sales pitch. Those are public anyway and could easily be listed centrally by pooling resources to the tune of a few cents per month per participating organization.
However, all that is about the code and the article is about claims of ownership over database content. Well fortunately enough, data can be imported, exported and shared between systems like Koha or Evergreen without ever having anything to do with OCLC. Most libraries, even many library consortia, no longer have any catalogers. In those cases, import the metadata for the catalog from the Library of Congress, that's what it's there for...
Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:4, Interesting)
...OCLC is a business (sorry, non-profit) that has orchestrated a ginormous database of bibliographic data and summaries, which it then sells to libraries both on- and off-line.
Libraries that use and display these records are expected to indicate that they were provided by OCLC and cannot be re-copied en masse.
So far, I can't blame 'em. That's a huge database to just let slip away for free. However, I imagine that this part of the policy would make a few libraries upset:
Reasonable Use. Use must not discourage the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat or substantially replicate the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat.
Which, to me, translates as "If you use our database, you're not allowed to compete with us, period."
other crooked OCLC behaviors (Score:5, Interesting)
This comes as no surprise to me. I work for a small record label that provides a streaming audio service to about 150 colleges and institutions. Many of our clients like to have information about our content stored in their institutional catalog/OPAC.
The thing is, these catalog systems pretty much only accept MARC-formatted records. The MARC format is kind of obscure, and it's nothing we want to generate ourselves, so we provide CSV data to OCLC and they convert it to MARC format for us.
The amazing part of the racket they're running is that we have to *pay* OCLC to make these records for us, and then they turn around and require *another* payment from anyone who wants to use the records.
We aren't even entitled to our own copy of the data they've converted for us. Presumably, if we wanted it, we'd have to purchase it from the people we gave it to in the first place. It's needless to say, but we also don't see any kind of profit sharing from OCLC when 150 libraries each purchase thousands of these records.
Re:They can claim.... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's like saying the Encyclopedia Brittannica can't enforce copyright on its stories, because they don't own the facts.
In other words: no, OCLC doesn't own the books, or the facts about them, but they do own the database.
But that's not even the issue (although you're forgiven for having to dig around to find the real issue, since the article summary above doesn't really say it). It's the fact that OCLC wants to be the only records database out there, and is trying to use legal force to stop libraries from sharing their records with anybody else.
old story, OCLC at it again (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a systems librarian (librarian who is in charge of the servers and systems) who has dealt with OCLC for thirty years. They tried to do this with libraries as well, claiming ownership of information that has, for the most part, been contributed by libraries themselves. OCLC does very little original cataloguing. It's mostly value-added stuff by little podunk, and a few large, libraries all over the world. They're going to have a hard time asserting their so-called rights here and the quite substantial 'library community' is not going to be on their side.
One note here: Several have already asserted that open source integrated library systems (ILS) projects are 'superior' to OCLC. You are comparing apples and oranges. KOHA is an ILS. It is NOT a bibliographic utility. KOHA (along with Dynix, Sirsi, Gaylord, VTLS, and a few others) provides a suite of programs to manage library collections and inventory, allow the check out and in of books and materials, provide an online public catalog, send overdue notices--that sort of thing. They are, by and large, local to and managed by a library system (which is exactly what I did for years), though there are many libraries which share such systems on a regional basis as well.
OCLC is a BIBLIOGRAPHIC utility, though they also dabble in other things such as acquisitions, collection analyses, and interlibrary loans. They are responsible for keeping records of books and materials in standard formats such as MARC (Machine Readable Cataloguing, a format originally designed to transport bibliographic records via 9-track tape, i.e.: it is a 'serially organized' database making use of tags and sub-tags to parse the data.) which are then made available to other libraries. This provides the kind of centralization that means 16,000 libraries don't have to all individually catalog the same book. Once is sufficient. Every ILS has an interface to OCLC that allows them to grab records and download them to the local system--as well as upload original cataloging to OCLC (a crucial point, I think.) Every library that owns a particular title attached their own identifier to the main record, which is what makes OCLC a good source for interlibrary loan information. In a sense, OCLC is the world's online catalog, but it DOES NOT displace the local OPAC. (Online Public Access catalog).
Now, places like librarything.com get their records from a variety of places, including Amazon, well known for crap-quality bibliographic records, and any number of universities and large library systems around the world. OCLC would be hard-pressed to 'prove' records in place at librarything originated with OCLC, much less that they are 'owned' by OCLC. In other words, OCLC can be easily circumvented.
With the demise of the smaller bibliographic utilities such as WLN (The Washington, then Western Library Network) OCLC has achieved world domination in some sense, but it is also a membership organization with library representation on its board and governing committees. Having seen OCLC try this crap before, my take on it is that it won't fly. I wouldn't worry about it.
Re:other crooked OCLC behaviors (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming your metadata isn't too complicated (and since you're using CSV, I'm assuming it isn't), it should be very simple to convert it to MARC using MARC4J [tigris.org]. I'm not sure if there are similar libraries for Perl or other languages.
In fact, I'd be happy to help you with this, since it's pretty ridiculous to be charging for such a simple service. You can email me at escowles [at] ucsd.edu.
-Esme
Re:Import Library of Congress to Evergreen or Koha (Score:3, Interesting)
Is LOC data accessed through Z39.50 or their MARC gateway in the Public Domain?
I know they are a Federal Government body, and their work might be public domain, but I am not entirely clear. Other Federal Agencies restrict access to their data based on privacy laws, or by working through contractors (who might not be subject to the Public Domain rule, I'm not sure).
I understand they might charge a fee for distribution of media, but I'm talking about access of the data via the Internet gateways.
Re:DDS (Score:2, Interesting)
When you say "own", people may assume that this is a copyright thing. It's not. In Feist v. Rural, the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that facts cannot be copyrighted (owned). This database is just a collection of facts, hence not subject to copyright. It's basically exactly like the case in Feist v. Rural in which the parties were fighting over the list of names in the white pages of a phone book. For those who like legalese, try http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm [cornell.edu].
That's why these guys are coming at it with contract law instead of copyright. They're telling libraries that the contract they signed to get the data controls what the libraries can do with the data. The contract apparently says, or the data provider wants people to believe that it says, that libs can use the data themselves, but cannot transfer it.
ASIN (Score:5, Interesting)
With everything going online, there is no longer a need for a linear sequencing of all human knowledge. It's all hypertext and keyword-based. So when I say "ASIN" database, I mean not just title and author, but also keywords, summaries, and maybe even recommended similar books and customer reviews. Amazon would still retain its well-oiled shipping system, but it would be in a position to define all of human knowledge in a finer way than Google currently does.
Re:The library blogosphere is up in arms! (Score:2, Interesting)
(No, I don't just mean physically. I mean it the way he meant it. He has far fewer remaining followers than God.)
Re:Non-profit huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
CDDB/freedb comparison (Score:1, Interesting)
It sounds like the library's version of the CDDB [wikipedia.org] debacle. Time for fork, just as freedb [wikipedia.org] did?