Exposing my ignorance: Bisson’s plan to give away catalog records
Mon 11 Dec 2006, 11:37 am
Time to expose my ignorance. That’s what blogs are for, right?
So we all know that Casey Bisson’s awesomeness has been institutionally confirmed and rewarded.
Subsequent to that announcement, I have now seen at least three blog posts (librarian.net, the goblin in the library, and Thing-ology) talking about Bisson’s plan to buy LC catalog records and release them under a Creative Commons or GPL license or something similar. Here is the relevant paragraph from Open Libraries:
The revolutionary part of the announcement, however, was that Plymouth State University would use the $50,000 to purchase Library of Congress catalog records and redistribute them free under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license or GNU. OCLC has been the source for catalog records for libraries, and its license restrictions do not permit reuse or distribution. However, catalog records have been shared via Z39.50 for several years without incident.
So here is where my ignorance crops up. I simply don’t understand what is happening here. My tech services knowledge is limited, and I have never cut a check for catalog records. A few questions:
- How can he do this? If the records don’t already have a permissive license, how can someone else decide to give them away more freely? If they are already licensed under some other scheme, isn’t this like buying a bunch of songs from iTunes and then “releasing” them under a Creative Commons license? Or, if these records aren’t covered by copyright or a restrictive license, why is this a big deal?
- How many catalog records does $50K buy?
- Who is likely to use the records and how? Is the idea that public libraries will grab them? Won’t they already have purchased the records they need? Or is it mainly to give innovators like Bisson some raw materials?
Please understand that I’m not trying to be cynical or even skeptical. I really just don’t understand what is going on here! So drop me an explanation or explanatory link in the comments if you can.
Chances are, once someone explains it to me, I’ll be excited, too. If Jessamyn West, Joshua Neff, and Tim Spalding think this is a good idea–not to mention Casey Bisson–I’m pretty sure I will think so too.
Eh! Steve! This comment by Tim might help answer some of your questions.
Comment by joshua m. neff — December 11, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
I emailed exactly the same passage to a more knowledgable colleague yesterday, asking almost the same questions. I thought maybe it was just being Australian that I didn’t “get” it. I’m so relieved someone else has the same quandry.
My questions were similar to yours:
“I don’t uderstand how just buying the records will give them license to redistribute them.
If LC didn’t mind this usage, then surely they’d just distribute them without charge..or a cartel of libraries would have got together before this to shell out the measley 50K.
And wouldn’t you have to buy all records, continuously, not just a subset once, to make this have any point?
Will this just benefit small strapped-for-cash libraries, or does it have implications for us?
Or have I missed the point and he’s going to repackage the data and value add?”
And, like you, I’d respectfully like someone to explain what the point is. I’ve missed it, but I’m sure, like you, that there is one that I just haven’t understood.
(at least we can both laugh off our embarassment together when it becomes clear)
Comment by Kathryn Greenhill — December 12, 2006 @ 1:32 am
So:
1. The LC is charged with selling its data, but it can’t assert IP, at least within the US. (Their site says the records MAY be copyrighted within other countries.)
2. People DO resell LC data at a discount. There was a discussion on one of the lists about that.
3. There’s no reason libraries who receive the LC CDs couldn’t have been giving them away for free. But libraries aren’t in the business of giving things away for fr… oh, never mind.
4. You can sign up for frequent update CDs, so buying the “retrospective” is just the first step.
5. I very much hope value gets added to what Casey is doing. But it may not be WPOpac that ads it.
Comment by Tim Spalding — December 12, 2006 @ 9:10 am
Kathryn, thanks for letting me know I’m not the only one confused, and Joshua, thanks for pointing to Tim’s previous comment.
Tim, don’t you love how you get to keep explaining to librarians our own professional practices (and how weird they seem/are)? My only defense is that my job is to do reference and work with students and faculty, and am usually not allowed to touch the catalog. Thanks for that information.
I guess we are talking about the Retrospective: 1968-2005 from LC’s Cataloging Distribution Service, with over 10 million cataloging records for about 30 grand, plus a year’s subscription to the updates. And libraries don’t share this information already because of inertia? Or because they prefer to pay for value added by OCLC?
I’m still very curious to see how this pans out, but I feel a bit better informed now. Thanks!
Comment by Steve Lawson — December 12, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
And here I was, just thinking, “Oh, gee, that’s so cool” without even realizing that, I, too, was a little puzzled. My only theory was that perhaps it’s sort of like selling copies of government reports (e.g. the Iraq Study Group report, the 9/11 Commission, etc.), but in reverse. Maybe some clever person out there will write a wonderful post explaining the ins and outs of goverment docs and copyright to us. . . freegovinfo.info, anyone?
Comment by Laura — December 12, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Thanks for asking this question, Steve, I was also just sort of assuming that it was a good and possible thing since those folks were excited. :) Tim’s comment was helpful.
Comment by Alison — December 13, 2006 @ 8:08 am