Re: OCLC's proposed policy on record use - my two cents worth

 
Tim Spalding said: "At this point, if OCLC succeeds in locking library information up, libraries have only themselves to blame."
 
I agree with that 100%. I guess my biggest gripe about this is OCLC's presentation of a unilateral contract as a fait accompli. Sort of like: "Here's a new unilateral contract where we hold all the cards...by the way, it goes into effect in February."  

At this point I personally favor ARL's approach...take the proposed policy off the table and develop a new one: 

"OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria." (http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/oclc-report-jan09.pdf)

Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN

--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Tim Spalding <tim_at_LIBRARYTHING.COM> wrote:

From: Tim Spalding <tim_at_LIBRARYTHING.COM>
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC's proposed policy on record use - my two cents worth
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 11:21 PM

> Interestingly, libraries are not required to retain the 996 fields that
OCLC will provide after the effective date of the policy, and they are just
"encouraged" to retrospectively add the 996 to WorldCat records
transferred to others.

A lot of people cheered when OCLC backed down from requiring to
"encouraging" the insertion and retention of OCLC licensing terms in
MARC records. But the terms themselves didn't change. A library caught
mis-using or mis-transferring could but cut off from OCLC records,
including the ones they already had and upon which their library
depended day-to-day. And, of course, only OCLC got to say when a
library was misbehaving.

So a clear situation turned into a murky one—every copy-cataloged
record became legal worry. And when it comes to libraries—which are,
let us admit, not inclined or equipped to fight legal
battles—unclarity is paralysis.

I don't know about you, but I've stopped caring what OCLC does. They
have shown they will push for onerous, monopolistic terms. And they've
shown they'll back down in the face of concerted action by the library
and open-data community. They goals and their weakness are known. At
this point, if OCLC succeeds in locking library information up,
libraries have only themselves to blame.

Tim