Matters of policy
Wed 18 Feb 2009, 9:32 pm
Stop me if you think that you have heard this one before:
There is a large organization whose main business isn’t producing information, but instead hosting and aggregating information for many thousands of users on the web. Users upload content, and use the service to make that content public worldwide, and, likewise, to find other users’ content. Then one day the large organization decides to change the rules about how that information is shared, giving the organization more rights–to the point where it sounds to some people like the organization is trying to claim ownership of the users’ content, rather than simply hosting it and making it available on the web.
A small but vocal and influential group of users object to the policy change. The organization protests that it isn’t their intent to fundamentally change their relationship with their users and that legal documents tend to sound scarier than they really are. Most customers are either unaware or unconcerned by the change in policy, but the outcry continues until the organization backs down a bit, sticking with the old policy for the time being. The future, though, is up in the air.
- License:
- File under: Social software
- Comments? 19
Nicely said, and bravo for pointing it out.
Comment by Jason Griffey — February 19, 2009 @ 8:21 am
Bullseye. BRAVO.
Comment by Dorothea Salo — February 19, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
[...] Matters of Policy Steve Lawson compares the Facebook incident to OCLC policy changes. [...]
Pingback by Facebook TOS follow up « Librarian by Day — February 19, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Exactly right—and concisely expressed. So, does this make WebJunction SuperPoke?
Comment by Tim — February 19, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
[...] Service seemed to eerily parallel the changes in OCLC’s Record Use Policy, but it seems like Steve Lawson has already done it for me. I don’t think I could say it any [...]
Pingback by Facebook or OCLC? Perhaps both. « From the catalogs of babes — February 19, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
A simplistic, inaccurate comparison accentuated nicely by the bombastic (“influential…?”). Makes for nice copy for the convinced of their righteousness crowd, perhaps. Not much of an effective argument.
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 20, 2009 @ 8:19 am
Allen, I agree that it’s simplistic and not much of an “argument.” This wasn’t meant as a slam against either Facebook or OCLC, just pointing out some echoes and similarities.
And “influential” is obviously the right word. The people who spoke up in both cases influenced OCLC and Facebook to stop or delay their policy choices.
Anyway, you seem kind of upset, and I’m not sure why.
Comment by Steve Lawson — February 20, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Yes, I admit being touchy on this. I apologize for seeming to direct it toward you.
I’ve watched a series of arguments, petitions, and blog posts concerning OCLC’s proposed policy change. I perceive much of it (not all by any means) as self-reinforcing, often inaccurate, occasionally self-serving, and relentlessly critical, rallying an us vs. them struggle on the basis of analogies to the open source movement.
Your post, now being added to this body of resistance, seems to characterize this approach.
I suggest taking a fresh look at whether OCLC’s general approach can be improved so that it can serve the goal of leveraging viability of library-originated data in the networked environment as an expression of what is in the member’s best interests, whether it should be accepted as is, or whether it is truly in the member’s best interests that there be no restrictions on use of the aggregate resource so that Google, Amazon, LT, or anyone else should be able to extract *our* data without agreement and use it as they wish. Comparing this question to the uproar over Facebook’s policies, while timely, is arguably erroneous except on the most superficial of analogies. It is unfortunate that this, while not ill-intentioned, is being gleefully utilized to obscure the vital choices that underlie whether or not there is common interests among the membership to leverage our collective capabilities in the greater information universe or not.
Not all who lead the charge against this agreement have OCLC member interests at heart – I suggest that OCLC members should gain a clear sense of their interests as they contribute to the discussion. Not all who claim to be “radical” are working in the interest of revolutionary change in the capabilities and viability of libraries and their data. There are any number of interests afoot here that are glibly masked by the petitions, blog posts, t-shirts, etc.
A cataloging provocateur
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 20, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
I think that a lot of the discussion around the OCLC TOS actually have had “the goal of leveraging viability of library-originated data in the networked environment as an expression of what is in the member’s best interests” in mind. One such argument goes something like this: If the records are opened up, more developers will have the chance to create new discovery tools that will be a huge benefit to libraries, either because libraries will have more choices when it comes to selecting a discovery tool (beyond the major ILS options available now), or because it will spur the current ILS vendors to overhaul their products. It’s hard to be innovative in a vacuum.
Regardless, I think a lot of big companies are feeling their way in this “networked environment.” They’re trying out new ways to balance their needs against their users’ needs. In these two cases, the balance felt unfair to a bunch of people, which seems like a good enough reason to see if a better balance could be struck.
Comment by Iris — February 20, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Iris, Yes, there are many in the library community who offer reasoned and thoughtful critiques and suggestions on the policy. There are some who are even working actively to improve the policy. My sense of this is certainly colored by discussions on cataloging-oriented listservs and blogs (which is where I came across Steve’s post) and, even in that context, I know I have tended to paint the opposition with an overly broad brush.
I see this as a crucial decision point (and thank goodness I’m *not* the decider. I tend to hope that the collaborative, non-commercial library world in the U.S., most prominently represented though OCLC, will develop and implement innovative, viable services that are integrated where our various users are. If we can’t (or bow out), then the commercial vendor community will surely do so. OCLC, for all of the missteps, has served collaboration tremendously for over 40 years. The environment has changed tremendously – I see the policy as more in-step with the environment than not (try obtaining all of any successful 2.0 giants data free of charge for any use, commercial or not to test the waters). Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure isn’t directly comparable to the Facebook controversy.
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 20, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
It’s certainly not directly comparable in the details. You’re right. But the “we own your stuff even when you’d rather we didn’t” approach is similar enough to have made an interesting thought piece. It’s the ethos that’s comparable, in my opinion, the misstep in striking that balance between stakeholder needs.
Comment by Iris — February 20, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
It may be more fruitful if OCLC members see this as “we (OCLC members) own our stuff” instead of “we (OCLC) own your stuff” in order to help strike that balance. Just saying…
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 20, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
It would feel more like that if I could then use my stuff in whatever way I wanted. But I can’t. I have to use “my” stuff ONLY in the ways that OCLC says I can, which makes it feel less like it’s mine and more like it’s OCLC’s. I also have to pay to use it, which also doesn’t make it feel very much like mine. Just sayin…
Comment by Iris — February 20, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
From the policy:
An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record.
From the FAQ:
9. Is my library’s original cataloging governed by the Policy?
Your Use or Transfer of records designated in WorldCat as your original cataloging, are not governed by the Policy. See Section B of the Policy.
Your stuff is your stuff. If your library is an OCLC member, you pay for use of everybody’s stuff (1.1 billion records – what percentage is your library’s?). If you pay more than the value you receive, it might be time to bail.
Off for the weekend. Regards!
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 20, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Allen, agreed, folks may be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Your more fruitful way of interpreting it [the new/improved/revised/new TOS when it comes out iteration] is a nice trusting interpretation; however, many folks who disagree with it [the current/new/temporarily withdrawn TOS iteration] disagree with this more fruitful interpretation.
In my broad-strokes read of the language used, my impression strongly favored the “we (OCLC) own your stuff” side of the discussion. The we own the data and you can’t do x or y or z implications came through pretty strongly.
It needs work, just like Facebook’s needs work, too bad there wasn’t a trial balloon sent up instead of a unilateral “this will change” statement, in either situation.
It’s life, as long as the original authors of the faux pas don’t take the criticisms (especially the accurate, if in unfriendly tones ones) personally, a better agreement/terms will be worked out.
*shrug*
Comment by Aaron the Librarian — February 20, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
It seems to me that if a host invites guests and asks each to bring one ingredient (one person bringing eggs, one baking powder, one flour, one salt, and so on), that it’s a little disingenuous to then serve brownies and say that the guests may each eat only the parts of the brownies that they brought with them when they arrived.
But we’re getting far afield from Steve’s original food for thought, which wasn’t fundamentally a slam on OCLC. It was much more about upsetting a balance and having to backtrack before figuring out a better balance.
Comment by Iris — February 20, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
A better comparison might be if you belonged to a food cooperative—sharing your time and produce with others in a friendly, mutual way. No food cooperative attempts to contractually bind people you invite to dinner, or the people they have dinner with, and so on. And of course brownies and produce are finite goods, while information does not diminish when you share it—quite the opposite, in fact.
Comment by Tim — February 23, 2009 @ 1:30 am
A better comparison might be a tool coop (I’ve belonged, volunteered and worked for food coops for 30 years (still do) and 2 tool coops alongside many other people-owned orgs – community radio, community gardens, etc.). Anyway, the members have accumulated many tools and have a governing organization that keeps them in good repair, builds and maintains tool sheds, facilitates sharing, adds new tools with coop funds, etc.
Forty years of tool sharing go by until times come where tools become much more valuable. Some really creative tool stores crop up and some of the coop members use them as well as (or instead of) their coop. However, it emerges the stores want to use the tool coops tools. If they can’t get them from the coop directly, they’ll try to get them from members. The governing board, without fully consulting the membership, decides that, while everyone who is a member can use the tools and even loan their own portion of the tools to the tool stores as long as it isn’t for-profit, if a tool store wants to use the tools, they need to come to agreement with the governing board.
Rallied in part by the cool tool stores (not evil tool stores, to any dufus who dares think this), who are very adept at 2.0 crowd sourcing their goals of using the tool coop’s tools without restriction, a large proportion of the members (not small but vocal) critique, attack and sometimes insult the governing board of the coop and those who try to say “Hey – these are our tools and, regardless of how flawed the board’s decision was, our coop needs to address this because it weighs heavily on the future of the coop.”
I’ve critiqued the policy myself and made my own somewhat ignorant suggestions. At the same time, I think the tool coop should look carefully at their relationship to the tools they own as well as cool tool stores (now and in the future) who want to use their tools and help the board craft some decisions about tool sharing.
Comment by Allen Mullen — February 23, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Whatever our disagreements, it looks like Iris, Tim, Allen, and I can all agree that it’s fun and instructive to make radically simplified analogies about the OCLC policy debate.
Comment by Steve Lawson — February 23, 2009 @ 2:59 pm