Jonathan:
Why can't we just use OAI to pass them around? Much less overhead,
and the aggregators and services can develop on their own once the
records are available.
We're on the web now, remember? Not the same need for a central body
to herd us ... ;-)
Diane
>Here's what I would see as the game plan:
>
>1) Create a new repository of records, with the intention of making them
>freely available.
>
>2) Invite libraries to submit their own records to this repository.
> [A record created completely in-house by a library
>unquestionably has copyright owned by that library. In the more usual
>case where several libraries have contributed copy, they all perhaps
>share a portion of copyright. Which libraries these are is noted in a
>MARC tag. If you have all those libraries permission--you are
>unquestionably in the clear as far as copyright goes. That is, if
>cataloging records are in fact copyrightable at all, something that is
>legally questionable and has never been tested in court. Then there's
>OCLC licensing agreements to consider too---the restrictions of which
>are an entirely DIFFERENT question than copyright law. Sigh.]
>
>2.5) Try to make it as easy as possible for libraries to submit their
>records.
>
>3) Create services around this new repository that are so unquestionably
>useful and cool, that every library _wants_ to have their records (and
>records of holdings) in there, even NYPL won't be able to resist,
>they'll realize they had no reason in the first place after all.
>
>If succesful, now you've got a new free repository. (This is maybe what
>Talis is trying to do?). Now, _somebody's_ going to have to fund the
>infrastructure maintenance of this repository. So, hey, all the users
>chip in and pay for it cooperatively. But wait, isnt' that what OCLC was
>in the first place? OCLC would presumably argue that they don't give
>away recorsd for free precisely because they need to fund this useful
>service somehow. Now, if you disagree with OCLC's business model, think
>there's a more useful one that could serve our community with this
>service far more affordably, I can see two options. One is try to get
>involved in OCLC's political processes to exert political power to
>change OCLC (which is after all a cooperative owned collectively by many
>of our libraries). Second is try to create a new cooperative competitor
>to OCLC, at least for the provision of certain services, along the game
>plan above. Neither is easy, but I think the second is probably actually
>easier.
>
>Jonathan
>
>Casey Bisson wrote:
>>Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>>The real question is: has anyone ever been hassled about re-using
>>>records? I haven't heard of a case... has anyone else? And it's not
>>>like
>>>we aren't sharing them because records are flying around all over the
>>>place with metasearch and Z39.50 and all that.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>The story of the MIT Barton records is worth looking into, and NYPL
>>takes sharp action against people who attempt to use records from
>>their catalog (just looking at examples from the last few months).
>>And I have my own experience (it includes being told "the FBI
>>investigates allegations of misuse of our systems").
>>
>>This legal uncertainty and limited access to the data is keeping many
>>creative people (and companies) away.
>>
>>--Casey
>>
>
>--
>Jonathan Rochkind
>Sr. Programmer/Analyst
>The Sheridan Libraries
>Johns Hopkins University
>410.516.8886
>rochkind (at) jhu.edu
Received on Wed Apr 25 2007 - 14:15:40 EDT