Non-Profit Org Claims Rights In Library Catalog Data

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?"

Comments

They can claim....

[mlwmohawk]

They can claim anything that they want, but they can't enforce property rights on something they don't own.

Re:They can claim....

[mlwmohawk]

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:DDS

[captainjaroslav]

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:Okay, let me see if I got this right....

[mblase]

This guy, 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.

Clever Business Plan

[idontgno]

1. Create card catalog database
2. Sue people who copy the data
3. ???
4. Non-profit!

Re:old story, OCLC at it again

[terrapin44]

"Having seen OCLC try this crap before, my take on it is that it won't fly. I wouldn't worry about it." You have much more faith in OCLC's incompetence then me. They have pretty much bought or other wise put all of their competitors out of business. I am very worried about it. - Another Systems Librarian

Re:DDS

[captainjaroslav]

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 surprising that B is protected. You then started foaming at the mouth and ranting without having actually understood what you were reading.

Why am I bothering to explain this? Sigh. I must me new here.

Re:DDS

[CyberKnet]

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:DDS

[fruitbane]

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.