I usually like to cover a wide mixture of topics on this blog.  So three posts on the same subject in almost as many working days is symptomatic of something significant that is exercising our [library] world.

Fortunately slipped in to the sequence of posts to break up the wall-to-wall OCLC speculation is a podcast with JP Rangaswami, of Confused of Calcutta fame, who has some very interesting views that are actually very relevant to the things that are going on in the world of OCLC at the moment.  As he said: “Have you ever met the customer that gained value from having region coding on a DVD?” Lots of vested interests see value from DVD region coding, but the end users? – no.

Whatever is going on with with the opening up, or restricting access to, library data, we must not loose sight of who gains the most value from that data – the library user.

So what are OCLC playing at?  The last few days has witnessed leaks, rumours, assuring noises in blog comments, the launch of a whole area on the OCLC web site associated with the change in policy, then the subsequent taking down of the policy itself [captured here prior to the takedown], and now silence.   I am prepared to accept that the leak of the original proposal caught them off-guard and they were not ready to talk at that time.  The pulling of the policy almost immediately after it was posted smacks of something being got plain wrong.  I’m sure that there will be a post-mortem in Dublin, Ohio as to how this is has been handled, but that is really just a side-show for the rest of us.

The announcement itself has definitely created a clash of perspectives.  From Karen Calhoun’s posting [previously referenced], “the updated policy will be generally welcomed by the OCLC membership, as it opens WorldCat records to new, noncommercial uses by members and non-member libraries alike”   Whereas there are many who are questioning their motives and the negative viral effects of the policy as it is proposed to be applied.

The one restriction that seems to be agitating some people most is  this one [from the FAQ page]:

The Policy does not permit uses that discourage contribution to WorldCat or replicate existing functions or purposes of WorldCat.

This is being interpreted as preventing libraries transferring records to a service, commercial or not, that could become a competitor to WorldCat, such as the Open Library or LibraryThing for instance.  For one commentator, that is ringing AT&T/Microsoft style anti-competitive alarm bells.  Others are questioning the enforceability of  the perceived restrictions on record transfers, as the copyright on the vast majority of records is not owned by the organisation imposing the policy.

From my position on the side-lines, it is very difficult to come to a balanced conclusion about this as the volume of complaint is drowning out the virtual silence from 6565 Kilgour Place.

We need a balanced view on the intentions behind, practical steps involved, ramifications of, and even legal basis of, the change policy shared with the wider community so that we can all understand it and stop the rumour-mill grinding away.  I have invited Karen Calhoun, amongst others from OCLC, to join me on the Library 2.0 Gang so that we can cut through some of the FUD and get an open and balanced conversation of what this really means.  Hopefully it will not be too long before this will take place.

Share This