There's still an important difference between a 'de facto' monopoly, and
actually giving Google the exclusive _right_ to do something. It's
actually the second one that, all indications are, OCLC is doing with
Google! So rather than helping us, they're doing the opposite of what we
would like. OCLC has given Google things that they won't even give us,
their members!
A 'de facto' monopoly (not backed up by exclusive legal rights) would
simply mean that Google is doing it _better_ than everyone else. Okay,
more power to them. It's when you remove the ability of others to try
and do "it" better than Google that we should be worried. "It" isn't
really one monolithic thing of course -- there are all sorts of things
that one can do with our data, and someone else might do one of them
better than Google, or might do something Google doesn't even try to
do. but they can't even try if someone (like OCLC) is operating as
gatekeeper, putting barriers in their way that Google doens't have.
Jonathan
Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Jonathan:
>
> "But it would be a horrible mistake to let google somehow _monopolize_
> our records. We should share them with _everyone_."
>
> Given Google's influence, people and infrastructural resources, and
> head-start (regarding scanning books, including out-of-print books
> currently subject to copyright law***), how would the result not end up
> being a de-facto monopoly (leaving everyone else in the dust?)
>
> More and more I think such a thought may be reasonable: "Help me OCLC,
> you're my only hope..." (to contrast with Tim Spalding's "OCLC as Death
> Star" comparison: "I find your lack of faith disturbing") : )
>
> Regards,
> Nathan
>
> *Listen to this program with Adam Smith from Google:
>
> http://chronicle.com/media/audio/v55/i40/smith/
>
> In it, he talks about "institutional subscriptions", or licenses to
> Google Book Search (in the
> context of academic libraries), for access (students and faculty) to
> "all of the books [Google has] scanned"... He goes on to talk about the
> books they've scanned from their library partners (out of copyright
> books and out of print, but not necessarily out of copyright books)...
> I am unclear as to whether he is only talking about those books and not
> the most recently published (in print) books...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:22 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
>
> Weinheimer Jim wrote:
>
>> If we keep everything to ourselves and expect that everyone will seek
>> us out for our knowledge and our "superior data" I think we are sadly
>> mistaken. But putting all of our eggs into the single "Google" basket
>> wouldn't be wise, either. If we share our records--which I think is
>> absolutely essential--it must be with everyone everywhere, so that
>> *people* (not just corporations) can use our records to help them
>> build their own tools so that they can succeed. If they succeed, we
>> succeed.
>>
>
> Agree 100%. There is absolutely no reason not to share our records with
>
> Google, if they're interested in them, and it's to our benefit if they
> are! But it would be a horrible mistake to let google somehow
> _monopolize_ our records. We should share them with _everyone_.
>
> That's part of my concern with the current OCLC/WorldCat agreement.
> Which isn't public, so we can't tell _exactly_ what's going on (problem
> #1 right there). But from what I can tell, OCLC shared records with
> Google in an 'exclusive' kind of way, according to some special (secret)
>
> agreement -- and these were records that OCLC would like to _prevent_ us
>
> from sharing with other people. And someone on this list recently
> posted that they didn't even share as much metadata with Google as
> Google would have liked!
>
> I wrote a bit more about this here:
> http://bibwild.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/gbsoclc/
>
> Share with Google, of course -- but don't give Google exclusive access.
> Share with _everyone_. Put our eggs in as many baskets as possible.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> After all, that's what have always done: we make records and create
>>
> tools so that the general public can find the information they need so
> that they can then go on and succeed in whatever it is they are doing.
>
>> Now.... do I really believe that "open" is the path to success? I
>>
> don't know if there is a way out in these difficult times, but I
> honestly do not believe that "closed" is a solution to any of the
> challenges facing us.
>
>> Jim Weinheimer
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Jul 14 2009 - 12:07:10 EDT