This is the story of a monster, a sorcerer’s apprentice, a nice little thing that’s grown and grown until it’s gotten out of hand and turned on its creators. It’s the story of a little-known organization called OCLC (the Online Computer Library Center) that is — no joke — trying to steal your library, all of our libraries, for itself.
OCLC was founded in 1967 by Fred Kilgour, a pioneering Ohio librarian, with a simple idea: Instead of having every library in the country separately catalog a book — laboriously entering its title, author, and subjects in just the right format — why not have one person enter the cataloging information, upload it to a central computer, and then let everyone else download a copy from there?
It was called WorldCat, for World Catalog, and it’s been a resounding success. Today it has around 50 million book records. But OCLC, the group that owns and operates it, has been a different story. It started small — a little office in Ohio, a set of membership dues to share the cost of running the servers. But OCLC’s control passed from librarians and academics to business people (its senior executive comes from consulting firm Deloitte & Touche). They realized they had a monopoly on their hands and as costs for running servers have gone down, their prices have gone up. They charge you once to get your records added to WorldCat and charge you again to get them back out and charge you a third time for a whole series of additional fees and services.
They’ve used the resulting flow of cash to fund a spree of acquisitions of commercial companies and expand into other fields. Their small Ohio office has grown into a huge executive complex. They’ve used their power and influence to put other library suppliers out of business so they can sell the same products themselves. And, throughout it all, they’ve become increasingly closed, even secretive.
Not wanting to disrupt the money flow, OCLC has dragged its feet in getting library records on the Web. It wasn’t until a couple years ago that they finally put up a WorldCat website, and even then they’ve tried to keep a tight lid on it. Only Google and Yahoo are allowed to look at more than a handful of pages, and even they were only given access to 2 out of 110 million, and even those are provided under a strict licensing agreement. In an era where people are increasingly turning to Google instead of to libraries for research, this is insane — it dooms libraries to further obscurity by not even giving their books a chance in world of search engines.
All this was bad, but it was tolerable. 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.
It’s not just Open Library that’s at risk here — LibraryThing, Zotero, even some new Wikipedia features being developed are threatened. Basically anything that uses information about books is going to be a victim of this unprecedented powergrab. It’s a scary thought.
The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client.
posted by w. burroughs on November 13, 2008 #
My sister is a sysadmin at Texas Tech University Library. They are very aware of this, of course, and it sucks.
I don’t know if you know about OLE (Open Library Environment) and org that is having regional meetings all through November.
http://oleproject.org/
posted by Carlos Bueno on November 13, 2008 #
There are still librarians who can catalogue out there. They want to hold the information hostage? They can’t. They can only hold what they have. The books are still in the libraries. The librarians can create their own WorldCat.
Their money comes from people doing business with them. If you ignore them, they will go out of business. More work for librarians, more information for everyone. Get to it.
posted by cranky librarian on November 13, 2008 #
well, i left the wonderful, open, free-thinking, academic world of libraries, and went to work for a horrible, giant evil corporation. namely, a bank.
‘course, you can get the routing number of any bank you want, for free, on google. i wonder if the ‘free, open’ OCLC would be so foolish as to allow routing numbers to be public, or would they have seen a ‘nonprofit’ margin in there and started suing people and copyrighting 9 digit numbers?
posted by decora on November 13, 2008 #
This essay is being discussed over at Metafilter:
http://www.metafilter.com/76516/Stealing-Your-Library
posted by Mark Crane on November 14, 2008 #
I have published a Talking with Talis podcast conversation with Karen Calhoun and Roy Tennant over on the Panlibus Blog, in which they explore in depth the intention, details and ramifications of this new policy.
posted by Richard Wallis on November 14, 2008 #
I’m a librarian, and I absolutely did notice the schizophrenic relationship that OCLC has with Open OCLC / “Find in a Library” service on Google and Yahoo, and you’re the only person I’ve ever seen address it. I though it was just me, but I was like, “why would they make Open OCLC and then make it impossible to find” and I also noticed that it didn’t quite seem to have as much content. I have a small private library, so I don’t have records on there, but I did use their copy cataloging service (for $1000) to catalog my library years ago.
posted by SFD on November 14, 2008 #
Aaron,
We respect the perspective that you bring to the important discussion of information access. We are likely in solid agreement on what is probably the central point of your most recent blog posts — increasing information access to users around the globe.
Increasing access to information and to the world�s libraries is OCLC�s mission. OCLC, like most communities and organizations, establishes guidelines and policies to support the goals and obligations of its membership. OCLC needs to update guidelines as the environment and the tools of the Web evolve.
The purpose of the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is to update the current Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records, to facilitate the freest possible use of WorldCat bibliographic data while maintaining the strength of the OCLC cooperative and the network effects generated for libraries by WorldCat.
What is of concern is your misinterpretation of the facts surrounding the policy.
We would like to clarify several points about the policy that have been incorrectly stated on this blog. Specifically, it is important that your readers and the library community are aware of the following:
1) Access to WorldCat is freely available to all at www.WorldCat.org.
2) There is no intention to restrict the downloading of bibliographic information from WorldCat-derived records into Zotero and other bibliographic software. As is true today, there will be no impact on noncommercial use that supports learning, teaching, academic research, scientific research, private study, verification of bibliographic information, development of bibliographies, and similar pursuits.
3) There is no intention of ceasing free access to WorldCat data and to OCLC member library collections to anyone in the world with an Internet connection through WorldCat.org. In addition, there is no intention to constrain the operation of union catalogs and resource sharing systems that have been in place for years, nor does the revised policy impact noncommercial record exchange between libraries using protocols like Z39.50. Our FAQ covers many use cases that may be of interest to your readers.
4) The policy carries forward the principles, if not the wording of the current Guidelines, which have been in place since 1987. The changes from the Guidelines to the policy may be summarized as (a) increased access to WorldCat data for museums and archives; (b) clarification of conditions for data sharing; and (c) provision of an easy method for proposing new uses that aren�t covered by the policy.
5) The policy provides a mechanism for commercial use, provided that the use is in the best interest of libraries, benefits members and is consistent with OCLC’s public purposes.
6) The existing Guidelines remain in effect until mid-February. During this period we will continue to listen to comments from OCLC member libraries and other key stakeholders about the policy. OCLC has already made substantive changes in response to concerns raised by members.
7) OCLC welcomes collaboration with Open Library. We respect the goals of Open Library and believe that our members and other libraries, museums, and archives could benefit a great deal from cooperation between our two organizations.
The FAQ for OCLC’s updated policy addresses these topics and more here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/default.htm And the updated policy can be found here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/catalog/policy/policy.htm; the Guidelines are here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/support/documentation/worldcat/records/guidelines/default.htm
If you or your readers have questions, please contact us at recorduse@oclc.org
posted by Karen Calhoun, OCLC on November 14, 2008 #
My reply is posted next, but I’ll respond to a few more specific points here. Basically, Karen hasn’t pointed out a single thing I got wrong, but she got plenty wrong herself:
WorldCat.org blocks people who try to visit many pages. It also only shows a small subset of the record information in WorldCat.
This simply isn’t true. Any kind of work that discourages contributing to WorldCat or approaches the function, purpose, or size of WorldCat is prohibited. It’s easy to imagine wanting to do research on all of WorldCat but, oops!, that approaches WorldCat’s size and so is banned.
Note Karen’s wording — “through WorldCat.org”. This is another admission that she’s trying to prevent any alternative ways of accessing or using the data.
Again, this just isn’t true. The original principles granted blanket permission to nonprofits and libraries (organizations). The new principles only permit a specific subset of uses.
I said nothing about commercial use, except to mention LibraryThing. But since she brought it up, this is again completely untrue. The policy is perfectly clear: “Commercial Use of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party wishing to make such Use.”
Finally, if Karen really wants to collaborate with Open Library, then let’s exchange data. We’re certainly eager to!
posted by Aaron Swartz on November 15, 2008 #
Aaron—
Be careful when arguing with a liar. Karen’s getting her PR points through Bob Murphy, a truly poisonous OCLCl flack.
The rate of use throttle is a good point, too. When I tried to put 20 records into Zotero, I got errors on the 20nd record.
You know what really sucks about OCLC? They don’t improve their own software, and they sue to keep anyone else from developing their own.
posted by anon on November 15, 2008 #
Karen: when you say
maintaining the strength of the OCLC cooperative and the network effects generated for libraries by WorldCat.
Are you sure you really don’t mean: “preventing any other entity from offering superior services at lower costs at net benefit to libraries and users, and using OCLC’s current size as club with which to bludgeon the competition”? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.
posted by Jacob Rus on November 17, 2008 #
Good work. “Maelstrom Over Metadata” in today’s Inside Higher Education..”In any case, the initial reaction to the policy change was swift, complete with an online petition.
“Not satisfied with controlling the world’s largest source of book information, it wants to take over all the smaller ones as well,” wrote Aaron Swartz, one of the founders of OpenLibrary and a widely read Internet thinker, on his blog Thursday.” http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/14/worldcat
posted by Kathleen de la Peña McCook on November 17, 2008 #
Sighs:
More of what “they” Do Not (but should) teach you in Library School; Reference 101, Beginning Cataloging, and Libaries & management Principles!
Sheesh…what a bunch of crooks!
posted by Auntie Nanuuq on November 17, 2008 #
Libraries are sustaining a proprietary model for catalog record sharing based on centralized mainframe processing when nowadays “the network is the computer” and metadata should be harvested from peer sources through a secure, scalable, structured, open source peer to peer system. Libraries, vendors, publishers and booksellers could participate. The goal is to create an open source environment for applications development—record sharing, authority and quality control, cataloging, acquisitions, resource sharing, interlibrary loan, links to digital resources, bookselling, media downloads, etc. Open source access would also invite participation by smaller libraries, and would provide a foundation for open access to resources in the future.
posted by Jerome Yavarkovsky on November 17, 2008 #
You can also send comments by email.
Comments
The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client.
posted by w. burroughs on November 13, 2008 #
My sister is a sysadmin at Texas Tech University Library. They are very aware of this, of course, and it sucks.
I don’t know if you know about OLE (Open Library Environment) and org that is having regional meetings all through November.
http://oleproject.org/
posted by Carlos Bueno on November 13, 2008 #
There are still librarians who can catalogue out there. They want to hold the information hostage? They can’t. They can only hold what they have. The books are still in the libraries. The librarians can create their own WorldCat.
Their money comes from people doing business with them. If you ignore them, they will go out of business. More work for librarians, more information for everyone. Get to it.
posted by cranky librarian on November 13, 2008 #
well, i left the wonderful, open, free-thinking, academic world of libraries, and went to work for a horrible, giant evil corporation. namely, a bank.
‘course, you can get the routing number of any bank you want, for free, on google. i wonder if the ‘free, open’ OCLC would be so foolish as to allow routing numbers to be public, or would they have seen a ‘nonprofit’ margin in there and started suing people and copyrighting 9 digit numbers?
posted by decora on November 13, 2008 #
This essay is being discussed over at Metafilter:
http://www.metafilter.com/76516/Stealing-Your-Library
posted by Mark Crane on November 14, 2008 #
I have published a Talking with Talis podcast conversation with Karen Calhoun and Roy Tennant over on the Panlibus Blog, in which they explore in depth the intention, details and ramifications of this new policy.
posted by Richard Wallis on November 14, 2008 #
I’m a librarian, and I absolutely did notice the schizophrenic relationship that OCLC has with Open OCLC / “Find in a Library” service on Google and Yahoo, and you’re the only person I’ve ever seen address it. I though it was just me, but I was like, “why would they make Open OCLC and then make it impossible to find” and I also noticed that it didn’t quite seem to have as much content. I have a small private library, so I don’t have records on there, but I did use their copy cataloging service (for $1000) to catalog my library years ago.
posted by SFD on November 14, 2008 #
Aaron,
We respect the perspective that you bring to the important discussion of information access. We are likely in solid agreement on what is probably the central point of your most recent blog posts — increasing information access to users around the globe.
Increasing access to information and to the world�s libraries is OCLC�s mission. OCLC, like most communities and organizations, establishes guidelines and policies to support the goals and obligations of its membership. OCLC needs to update guidelines as the environment and the tools of the Web evolve.
The purpose of the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records is to update the current Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records, to facilitate the freest possible use of WorldCat bibliographic data while maintaining the strength of the OCLC cooperative and the network effects generated for libraries by WorldCat.
What is of concern is your misinterpretation of the facts surrounding the policy.
We would like to clarify several points about the policy that have been incorrectly stated on this blog. Specifically, it is important that your readers and the library community are aware of the following:
1) Access to WorldCat is freely available to all at www.WorldCat.org.
2) There is no intention to restrict the downloading of bibliographic information from WorldCat-derived records into Zotero and other bibliographic software. As is true today, there will be no impact on noncommercial use that supports learning, teaching, academic research, scientific research, private study, verification of bibliographic information, development of bibliographies, and similar pursuits.
3) There is no intention of ceasing free access to WorldCat data and to OCLC member library collections to anyone in the world with an Internet connection through WorldCat.org. In addition, there is no intention to constrain the operation of union catalogs and resource sharing systems that have been in place for years, nor does the revised policy impact noncommercial record exchange between libraries using protocols like Z39.50. Our FAQ covers many use cases that may be of interest to your readers.
4) The policy carries forward the principles, if not the wording of the current Guidelines, which have been in place since 1987. The changes from the Guidelines to the policy may be summarized as (a) increased access to WorldCat data for museums and archives; (b) clarification of conditions for data sharing; and (c) provision of an easy method for proposing new uses that aren�t covered by the policy.
5) The policy provides a mechanism for commercial use, provided that the use is in the best interest of libraries, benefits members and is consistent with OCLC’s public purposes.
6) The existing Guidelines remain in effect until mid-February. During this period we will continue to listen to comments from OCLC member libraries and other key stakeholders about the policy. OCLC has already made substantive changes in response to concerns raised by members.
7) OCLC welcomes collaboration with Open Library. We respect the goals of Open Library and believe that our members and other libraries, museums, and archives could benefit a great deal from cooperation between our two organizations.
The FAQ for OCLC’s updated policy addresses these topics and more here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/catalog/policy/questions/default.htm And the updated policy can be found here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/worldcat/catalog/policy/policy.htm; the Guidelines are here: http://www.oclc.org/us/en/support/documentation/worldcat/records/guidelines/default.htm
If you or your readers have questions, please contact us at recorduse@oclc.org
posted by Karen Calhoun, OCLC on November 14, 2008 #
My reply is posted next, but I’ll respond to a few more specific points here. Basically, Karen hasn’t pointed out a single thing I got wrong, but she got plenty wrong herself:
WorldCat.org blocks people who try to visit many pages. It also only shows a small subset of the record information in WorldCat.
This simply isn’t true. Any kind of work that discourages contributing to WorldCat or approaches the function, purpose, or size of WorldCat is prohibited. It’s easy to imagine wanting to do research on all of WorldCat but, oops!, that approaches WorldCat’s size and so is banned.
Note Karen’s wording — “through WorldCat.org”. This is another admission that she’s trying to prevent any alternative ways of accessing or using the data.
Again, this just isn’t true. The original principles granted blanket permission to nonprofits and libraries (organizations). The new principles only permit a specific subset of uses.
I said nothing about commercial use, except to mention LibraryThing. But since she brought it up, this is again completely untrue. The policy is perfectly clear: “Commercial Use of WorldCat Records is prohibited unless OCLC has entered into a separate written agreement with the party wishing to make such Use.”
Finally, if Karen really wants to collaborate with Open Library, then let’s exchange data. We’re certainly eager to!
posted by Aaron Swartz on November 15, 2008 #
Aaron—
Be careful when arguing with a liar. Karen’s getting her PR points through Bob Murphy, a truly poisonous OCLCl flack.
The rate of use throttle is a good point, too. When I tried to put 20 records into Zotero, I got errors on the 20nd record.
You know what really sucks about OCLC? They don’t improve their own software, and they sue to keep anyone else from developing their own.
posted by anon on November 15, 2008 #
Karen: when you say
Are you sure you really don’t mean: “preventing any other entity from offering superior services at lower costs at net benefit to libraries and users, and using OCLC’s current size as club with which to bludgeon the competition”? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.
posted by Jacob Rus on November 17, 2008 #
Good work. “Maelstrom Over Metadata” in today’s Inside Higher Education..”In any case, the initial reaction to the policy change was swift, complete with an online petition.
“Not satisfied with controlling the world’s largest source of book information, it wants to take over all the smaller ones as well,” wrote Aaron Swartz, one of the founders of OpenLibrary and a widely read Internet thinker, on his blog Thursday.” http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/14/worldcat
posted by Kathleen de la Peña McCook on November 17, 2008 #
Sighs:
More of what “they” Do Not (but should) teach you in Library School; Reference 101, Beginning Cataloging, and Libaries & management Principles!
Sheesh…what a bunch of crooks!
posted by Auntie Nanuuq on November 17, 2008 #
Libraries are sustaining a proprietary model for catalog record sharing based on centralized mainframe processing when nowadays “the network is the computer” and metadata should be harvested from peer sources through a secure, scalable, structured, open source peer to peer system. Libraries, vendors, publishers and booksellers could participate. The goal is to create an open source environment for applications development—record sharing, authority and quality control, cataloging, acquisitions, resource sharing, interlibrary loan, links to digital resources, bookselling, media downloads, etc. Open source access would also invite participation by smaller libraries, and would provide a foundation for open access to resources in the future.
posted by Jerome Yavarkovsky on November 17, 2008 #
You can also send comments by email.