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?"
DDS (Score:2)
Re:DDS (Score:5, Funny)
ObFuturama (Score:4, Funny)
"Dewey, You Fool! Your Decimal System Has Played Right Into My Hands! Ha Ha Ha Ha!"
Although I guess OCLC is saying that instead of the giant brains.
Re:ObAl (Score:4, Funny)
[Conan the Librarian lifts the man up with his bare hands]
Conan the Librarian: Don't you know the Dewey Decimal System?
Re:DDS (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, anybody who knew more than what they learned in elementary school about the DDC (it's actually called the Dewey Decimal Classification) to begin with probably knew that. Admittedly, that's not very many people, unfortunately. I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general, but I don't understand why so many people are surprised to find out that the DDC is a piece of IP like any other.
Now, the fact that one needs to pay to get the full version of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) confuses me a little more, since it's actually a governement-created resource. Well, actually I guess I do know. LC, and especially it's under-appreciated traditional services, like cataloging, classification and authority control are so underfunded that they actually need to charge money to libraries to keep those projects alive. Alas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to completely miss the point! The name-calling is especially constructive, too.
I said "I understand why a lot of people question IP laws in general..."
Then, in your rush to use your ever-so-clever language like "douchebag" (the 80s called, BTW, they want their slang back) and to talk about "my ideas" and "my theory," you completely ignored this ever-so-important part of the sentence.
You see, you don't think ANYTHING is protected as IP. I asked, however, that if A is protected, why should it be so surp
Re: (Score:2)
Well. English is my third language out of four, and Jon Steward says "douchbag" or "douche" all the time. So your 80s argument is worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. And I may have misunderstood you. But I'm still right. Sorry to break it for you...
Re: (Score:2)
"Sorry to break it for you..."
Since I never said you were wrong, what exactly are you "breaking for me?"
You keep insisting that I am defending IP law as it currently exists, which I never did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that you misunderstood him then the appropriate thing to do is to apologize, not to attempt to further insult him. And then you should probably think longer about whether you understand what people are saying before you post online about something.
It's great that you take initiative to learn a lot of languages, I applaud you for that. However, the effort you have expended in this endeavor does not entitle you to behave as badly as you have.
You should really consider apologizing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should really consider apologizing.
That would be a sign of weakness, and upon the first such exhibition the ravenous Slashdot hordes will descend upon him, leaving only his empty carcass behind.
The Pasty Horde (Score:2)
Then the rapacious Slashdot hordes get to have a go.
Re: (Score:2)
There really isn't "intellectual property". There are patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks. Patents and trademarks are regulated by one agency, and copyrights by a completely different one (the USPTO and Library of Congress respectively). Trade secret laws tend to be state-regulated and not a federal issue (for the most part).
These are very, very different and unfortunately are lumped together into one big vat called "intellectual property" with the further concept that anything which can b
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know. I'm a cataloger. I was just responding to one specific comment about DDC.
Re:DDS (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there is. A lot of hard work performed, most likely by "member" (read "customer") libraries, goes into those records. Since OCLC is the only game in town and this behavior is clearly anti-competitive, with little benefit to consumers, they could run afoul of anti-trust laws.
Re:DDS: market (Score:1)
Didn't you know? That is the new financial market trading system. People will now be able to buy, sell, and invest in the Dewey Decimal System. Buy the 500 subsection now while you still can. Fortunately it will be unregulated market with no government oversight. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?!?
Re: (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 g
The library blogosphere is up in arms! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's too late. You're all doomed.
Thanks,
God
Re:The library blogosphere is up in arms! (Score:5, Funny)
God is dead.
-Niet~*&%a~~NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Here's the part where AC comes in and tells us what happens when you stare into the abyss [goat.cx]
Re: (Score:1)
Or somewhere in Lafayette, IN; it amounts to the same thing.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
"God"? But your name isn't morgan_freeman!
It might be.
You never asked.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Librarians are a dangerous bunch. If you try to mess with information, they will mess with you. You think geeks overuse the mantra "information wants to be free"? Librarians live it. Oh sure they seem mild-mannered, but just try and put limits on the information they possess and see what happens. Or better yet don't, because if you're lucky what will happen is you'll be dead. If you're not lucky, you'll live through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The library blogosphere is up in arms! (Score:4, Funny)
At best we have a long meeting about it.
Lets pray it never comes to that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny: If libraries weren't a long-standing cultural tradition and somebody tried to start History's First Library in the year 2008, they'd probably be a brought up on charges by the media cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in league with the grammarians about whom your mother warned you. [signals.com]
Hey! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one that thought of Library War after reading the summary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshokan_Sens%C5%8D [wikipedia.org]
Yes you are and I feel horrible for forgetting about that show.
First of all... (Score:1)
Re:First of all... (Score:5, Funny)
Circuit city seems to be doing its best.
Non-profit huh? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are the same [wikipedia.org] for most of us.
Nonprofit mostly means that your directors don't get $1 billion a year compensation programs and you don't issue stock. The rest is in the flavor of the organization and the laws of the state you incorporated in.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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!".
Re: (Score:2)
As well other then willing to suffer the consequences, you should also come up with a good reason why you are performing this. Performing crimes in the Name of Civil disobedience then getting locked up as just a liberal wacko as you had a lame argument for your crime will not help anything. Also need to realize Copy and IP Rights, is not a big deal for most americans. And your time spent doing Civil disobedience would be better off raising public interests and perception of your cause legally. As if you ha
Re: (Score:2)
I mean rationality would indicate that if you do anything you are willing to suffer the consequences, but there is a little more to it than that. It's really more like:
if( (probablity_of_benefit)*(benefit) > (probability_of_consequences)(consequences) ){
breakTheLaw();
}
In the case of civil disobedi
Re: (Score:2)
Nice formula. Lets apply to music..
if( (probablity_of_benefit)*(benefit) > (probability_of_consequences)(consequences) ){
breakTheLaw();
}
1 (approaches 1, music files form torrents work nice) * 1 (you get the files) > 1e-8 (roughly the average of getting a 5k lawsuit) * 5e3 (settlement)
1 > 5e-5
break_the_law(True)
and I hate camelcase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just exposed the whole left wing agenda against the "evil" corporations. Don't like Comcast, don't buy cable. Don't like DirectTV either, then don't buy it. Don't then complain because you have no ESPN either.
The problem with people like that, is that they want everything on their own terms, rather than the terms being offered.
The whole GIMME GIMME GIMME thing is getting old and tired.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't then complain because you have no ESPN either.
This is the kind of crap is the first stuff that I mark as "not visible" in my channel table (mythtv).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of odd world do you live in?
If the catalog info disappears, the catalog info disappears. That has nothing to do with whether the book exists (my complete Twain will remain on my self no matter what happens to the catalog data) nor with whether it's available (you can always BUY a paper copy--AFAICT, Amazon et. al. do not use catalog information)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Completely within your rights as they stand now. Don't buy and don't receive -- simple.
This has an inherent presupposition that you can go do for yourself if you don't want to participate in exchange. If the rules that require you to participate in exchange also forbid you from doing for yourself, that's tyranny. You don't practice tolerance with tyranny. You fight to the bitter end, not giving an inch, until you have your liberty back
Re: (Score:2)
Che Guevara, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what civil disobedience means. As in, as Thoreau meant it, not like most people do today. And no -- I think you miss my point. They have no right to charge for it in the first place, there's no exchange... A corporation shouldn't own something that should be in the public domain. What I'm saying is "I don't agree with the law, nor your warped interpretation of it, and so I'm going to break it, say I broke it, and if you've got the gumption to come after me then let's go at it... And I will make you s
Re: (Score:2)
They can claim.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can claim anything that they want, but they can't enforce property rights on something they don't own.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
That's also what's most confusing. Their database is, at heart, a list of books.
How can they imagine that they could prevent other people from making a similar list?
Re: (Score:1)
They use a system, that has some human judgment involved in picking that number.
For example, a list of books published can't be treated as property, but if I have a top 10 list I bet it could (speculation).
Re:They can claim.... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying the Encyclopedia Brittannica can't enforce copyright on its stories, because they don't own the facts.
It owns the "articles," true, but it can't prevent the "facts" from being transfered.
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.
although you're forgiven for having to dig around to find the real issue
The arrogance of Slashdot posters astounds me. Most are all too quick to assume that someone does not know the specifics. You always lead with some a-hole comment intended to ad-hominem rather than rely on your own merit of argument.
Leave *me* out of your debate, address facts and issues alone, thank you very much.
At issue is a court ruling that a database collection of publicly known facts can comprise an original work. However, there must be original work involved, not merely the simple aggregation of data, but original work that augments the data.
A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright. If, however, they incorporated original work such as reviews and ratings, then the database could be protected by copyright.
So, when I say "they can claim what they want, but they can't enforce property rights on that which they do not own," the statement is true and accurate, so much so that it is inarguable. The issue is what constitutes an original work worthy of copyright protection.
Re: (Score:2)
You said:
"A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright."
Theoretically, you are correct except for the fact that they compiled that "standard library card catalog" (hereafter referred to as Dewey Decimal Classification or DDC) system initially, making the numbering the original work. http://www.oclc.org/dewey/ [oclc.org]
Since they originally compiled the books and created the numbering system (thereby creating a unique database which is
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Every book in the US has it's bibliographic information and much of it's cataloging information on the copyright page (I forget the official publishing term for this, but you know the one I mean). If they make access and use rights to the database too onerous, the libraries can simply hire typists (keyboardists?) to enter the data by hand. Then there ain't an damn thing they can do about it since it wasn't sourced from their database.
Re: (Score:2)
no, they are trying to stop the libraries from distributing their database and other people from profiting from their database, without kicking some money back. That's fair considering the amount of work it takes for them to keep the database updated.
------------------Actual Agreement Summary-------
OCLC® encourages and supports the widespread, non-commercial use of WorldCat records for scholarship and research to advance innovation that benefits libraries, museums, archives and their users. The
Re: (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, so
Don't Steal My Information! (Score:5, Funny)
Serutan's Fun Factz #22583: Columbus is the capital of Ohio.
Serutan's Fun Factz #57661: The chemical formula for water is H20.
- - - - - - -
Policy for Use and Transfer of Serutan's Fun-Factz Records:
YOU ARE FREE:
1. To use, reproduce, incorporate into works and display Serutan's Fun Factz records.
2. To transfer Serutan's Fun Factz records of your libraryâ(TM)s, archiveâ(TM)s or museumâ(TM)s own holdings.
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Noncommercial Use. Use of Serutan's Fun Factz records for commercial purposes requires a separate agreement with OCLC.
2. Noncommercial Transfer. Serutan's Fun Factz records may not be sold, sublicensed, or otherwise transferred for a fee, other economic gain or commercial purposes.
3. Attribution. Serutan encourages you to identify Serutan's Fun Factz as the source of Serutan's Fun Factz-derived records.
4. Reasonable Use. Use must not discourage the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to Serutan's Fun Factz or substantially replicate the function, purpose, and/or size of Serutan's Fun Factz.
5. Modification. Serutan encourages you not to remove the Serutan's Fun Factz number, the link to the policy, and any other means of attribution from Serutan's Fun Factz-derived records.
6. Conveyance. The policy terms and conditions remain in effect following the transfer of Serutan's Fun Factz records.
Have a Fun-Factz-Filled day!
Re: (Score:2)
Serutan's Fun Factz #57661: The chemical formula for water is H20.
How'd you manage to cram 20 hydrogen atoms into a single molecule? I'd bet there are some professional chemists who'd be quite interested in recreating such a feat...
Re: (Score:2)
For those using a font where this isn't so obvious: serutan wrote "H two zero" (H20), not "H two O" (H2O). The former is a molecule with 20 hydrogen atoms; the latter is two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom, commonly known as "water".
Hydrogen only has one bonding site per atom, so getting more than two of them to bond together without some other element in between would be quite a feat.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be sweet justice if a bunch of authors got together and sent OCLC a Cease and Desist for using author/title information without permission.
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Lists taken from public documents (Score:2)
Is LOC data accessed through Z39.50 or their MARC gateway in the Public Domain?
It appears, by virtue of consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship, specifically lists taken from public documents or other common sources [copyright.gov], to not be under copyright and thus in the Public Domain. This is, after all, material taken from the inside cover of the published item. The list itself, the Library of Congress Catalog, is also a public document.
Now all that won't stop RIAA, M$ and Disney from suing you. But then what would?
Oh, my! Work! (Score:2)
Well, the problem is whether or not the Library of Congress has a record for what you are cataloging. For example, my institution's library consists of a large number of rare books that do not appear in the LoC database. I'm sure there are plenty of other organizations in the same boat as us, which is how OCLC stays in business.
So in the case of newly acquired rare books, someone will have to have the dangerous task of opening the front cover and reading at least the title page. Yes all that takes time and many institutions don't budget for that time any more, but it can be cheaper and less hassle than dealing with OCLC's shenanigans.
Or you can take your ball and go, if OCLC won't play. Catalogs do have the ability to transfer records using ISO 2709 or ANSI/NISO Z39.2.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It could possibly mean, that they will try to enforce this new policy only once their database has accumulated enough tainted records.
As it stands, there should be no tainted records in ther
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."
Re:Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy [aaronsw.com], peeled from the Wikipedia list of comments, seems to summarize the real problem here better than I'd guessed:
At least folks could build an alternative to OCLC. So that's what I and others have been doing -- Open Library provides a free collection of over 20 million book records that anyone can browse, download, contribute to, and reuse for absolutely free. Naturally, OCLC hasn't been a fan. They've been trying to kill it from the beginning -- threatening its funders with lawsuits, insulting it in the press, and putting pressure on member libraries not to cooperate. (Again, notice the reversal: an organization libraries create to help them has now become so powerful that it is forcing libraries to help it.)
But recently, it's gone one step way too far. Not satisfied with controlling the world's largest source of book information, it wants to take over all the smaller ones as well. It's now demanding that every library that uses WorldCat give control over all its catalog records to OCLC. It literally is asking libraries to put an OCLC policy notice on every book record in their catalog. It wants to own every library.
Basically, they're feeling threatened by the Internet, they've locked Google and Yahoo out of their web-based records, and they don't want the records (which member libraries actually paid them to contribute to) being given away to anybody else.
Pooh on them. If this keeps up, it looks like they're liable to be replaced by something smaller, faster, and free-er that uses the Internet. Like the RIAA, they're being dangerously slow to embrace the new technology so widely used by their own customers. Unlike the RIAA, they stand a good chance of being completely circumvented if small libraries decide they'd rather share their records with someone like Google.
Re: (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 Sou
Re: (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
Re:Okay, let me see if I got this right.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To the extent that I can't blame a coyote for killing my pet rabbit that slipped out of the house, I suppose. But to the extent that the contents of their database was almost entirely donated by their customers for free (or in some cases, they were paid to add it), and they now want to have a monopoly on that donated information, it's decidedly douchey and against the spirit of libraries.
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: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: (Score:1)
Google Books (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So what you are say
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.
Clever Business Plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. It's CDDB/gracenote all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
That step 3 is quite hard to guess, anything that I can think of will lead to "Profit!" at the step 4.
With that in mind, there is quite probably some fraud going on at this organization accounting. Where is it based? The police should be interested.
OLPC (Score:2)
The main source of the bibliographic records that are carried in library databases is a non-profit organization called OCLC
It was just a matter of time before one laptop per child wasn't enough... now they want all our bibliographic records!
The obvious result of this (Score:2)
will be that building any creative work in digital form better be a charitable act. Once it is in digital form, you can't control it either through contracts or law. It is fair game for being "shared" out the wazoo.
I'd say that OCLC doesn't really stand much of a chance in this. We have grown up with the idea that if it isn't nailed down, it is going to be shared. Why do you think they might object to assisting in creating a competitor to themselves?
It is like being asked to train your replacement, only
Greed (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
So, if poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world, does that make librarians the unacknowledged ... bureaucrats ... of the world?
A "new policy" does not necessarily obligate (Score:2)
That is a matter of law, not just whatever the OCLC wishes.
Looks to me like there is a very big opening here for Open Source library information and cataloging.