Re: OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy

If Google really COULD provide a better (cost/benefit) alternative to 
everything libraries were doing... then that would still serve our 
users, so be it.

I don't think that's going to happen though.  Partially because Google 
has pretty much no interest in doing it. I mean, they have an interest 
in doing part of it with Google Books, sure.  So, okay, let's ignore the 
interest. I just am not scared of it, of the idea that somehow Google, 
if they had access to all our data, will produce something so good and 
so cheap that it'll make it impossible for anyone else to provide a 
discovery service for books ever again.

But if that DID happen... so be it, our users still win. It's changing 
times we're in.  But I think people exagerate Google's power.

Jonathan

Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> "Are you assuming this would be a _bad_ thing if Google "replicated" it
> -- or simply used our collective records instead of trying to replicate
> it?  I still don't understand why this is a bad thing. The more the
> merrier."
>
> If Google took all those records without permission, yes, it would be a
> bad thing.  If Google took all those records with permission, created
> the ultimate catalog (with location-specific access and more), and then,
> with their "ubiquitous access" appeal (and undoubtedly super cheap,
> perhaps "free" rates) were able to draw away library customers from OCLC
> and others during bad economic times - thereby possibly becoming a
> monopoly (tell me: who is going to compete with them, whose mission
> again it is to "organize the world's info") with a "cataloging business"
> that had previously been built largely on public funds... I am not sure
> that that would be a good thing.
>
> "I'm confused. Obvious that WHAT would happen? That OCLC would cease to
> exist if Google got it's hands on their records?"
>
> Yes.
>
> "But, um, it looks to me that OCLC has _already_ shared their records
> with Google, just under a secret agreement of some sort, instead of
> freely."
>
> Not enough to allow them to develop the ultimate catalog.  Re-read Karen
> Coyle's email.
>
> "But it's certainly not obvious to me that OCLC will cease to
> exist no matter who gets their hands on OCLC records."
>
> Well, in a Google-less world maybe, but in a world with Google, it seems
> to me that if Google has what OCLC has, Google has everything it needs
> and OCLC it out of cards.  And yes, to me, that seems obvious (my surety
> here could just be due to my overall ignorance, my lack of understanding
> the situation though, in which case I invite information that anyone has
> that they think might help)
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan Rinne
>
> Media Cataloging Technician
>
> Educational Service Center
>
> 11200 93rd Avenue North
>
> Maple Grove MN. 55369
>
> Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:35 AM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] OCLC Formally Withdraws WorldCat Policy
>
> Rinne, Nathan (ESC) wrote:
>   
>> Am I wrong to guess that the *one thing* Google can't replicate is the
>> mass of MARC records devoted to all those old books?...
>>
>>     
>
> Are you assuming this would be a _bad_ thing if Google "replicated" it
> -- or simply used our collective records instead of trying to replicate
> it?  I still don't understand why this is a bad thing. The more the
> merrier.
>
>   
>> Karen, I don't like the OCLC secrecy, hardball, and downright
>> "we're-not-a-business-but-we-act-like-one" stuff either, but maybe, in
>> regards to the cessation of OCLC's existence (if Google gets its hands
>> on all the MARC records) some people just consider it obvious that
>>     
> this
>   
>> would happen?
>>
>>     
> I'm confused. Obvious that WHAT would happen? That OCLC would cease to
> exist if Google got it's hands on their records?
>
> But, um, it looks to me that OCLC has _already_ shared their records
> with Google, just under a secret agreement of some sort, instead of
> freely.  But it's certainly not obvious to me that OCLC will cease to
> exist no matter who gets their hands on OCLC records.
>
> Dont' get me wrong, OCLC's existence is hardly assured in any event.
> OCLC very well might cease to exist _either way_, these are critical
> times of changing environments, OCLC has to figure out how to adapt.  It
>
> is FAR from obvious to me that the safest thing OCLC can do is
> monopolize it's data.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>   
>
>