The Review Board on Principles of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship has released their final report on OCLC’s proposed policy for use of records (pdf), and after reviewing the report, OCLC has formally withdrawn the policy.

This conclusion to the records policy proposal is the best that could be imagined.  OCLC has listened to criticism from the greater library community, considered both the policy and it’s criticism through the efforts of the Review Board, and has responded in a way that allows everyone to move forward with a greater understanding of how best to go about updating the policy.

I suggested early on that OCLC was a tiger, instinctively defending its territory.  This still feels like a proper metaphor:  the movement towards creating a policy without proper input from the library community, and the subsequent review and withdrawing of the policy, seems more like an organization that didn’t realize the true implications of what it was putting in place, as opposed to one that was attempting a power grab to create a monopoly.

This was, and remains, a critical issue for libraries.  The ability to use the metadata representing our collections (as well as connecting them to collections and resources beyond what we own) is critical to our future ability to offer services in ways that will serve our patrons best.

I certainly hope that OCLC sets up a policy creation board similar to the review board – one that seeks a wide a range of ideas, opinion and input.  This will ensure a policy that takes a broader and more complete view of the use of cataloging records, but will also strengthen OCLC, because a membership organization is stronger when the constituent members are consistently heard and respected.  This has happened with the Review Board, and if OCLC continues to encourage it, everyone will come out ahead.

To OCLC:  You have responded well, and in the process have created an opportunity to solidify your position as a membership organization.  Keep up the good work and you will benefit, along with your members.

To the Review Board:  The report is well-written, and does an excellent job of stating what was wrong with the policy (and the process of creating the policy), as well as providing a constructive means to create a new policy that will properly reflect the needs and desires of the membership as a whole.

To detractors of the policy:  Those who offered strong, but constructive, criticism deserve recognition.  This was an emotional debate, and keeping focused on the issues at hand has ultimately won the day.  The best, and most complete, resource of commentary and information is the Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change page.

This has been an education for all involved:  the power of sustained commentary, of constructive criticism, of listening as well as talking, and of reviewing and changing positions when necessary.  Everyone should keep it up.

resources:  ResourceShelf & Disruptive Library Technology Jester

Got an update from Linda Hulbert via SERIALST regarding their issues with Wiley (which I posted on Libology last week).  Wiley demonstrated that they could be flexible, and in doing so has allowed a library to continue to provide their content, and allows them to continue to be the company providing content.  This is a win-win situation, in which everyone makes adjustments in a way that ultimately benefits all involved:

I am happy to report that Wiley got back to me directly the day after the original post. The other happy news is that St. Thomas will be treated as a single site permitting us to sign the BAL license (Basic Access License) and not be required to use the EAL (Enhanced Access License).

We have looked at the language of both licenses closely to see what best serves the University of St. Thomas. We are grateful for the opportunity to choose rather than be locked into a kind of license because of a multi-site designation. I wish that everyone had the choice.

It appears to us that the BAL will meet all of our needs. We’ve read the license, the EBSCO license detail and looked at the Wiley FAQ. The only difference we can tell is that in the BAL, ILL is not explicit, but it is inferred and electronic course-packs are not explicit but they are also inferred. More than silent on the matter, the language permits the activities without so naming them.

We worried about two more areas: access in perpetuity for the content purchased (to obviate the need for purchasing paper, too) and usage data. The license, the FAQ and EBSCO’s review all indicate that we have access in perpetuity to subscribed data either by their supplying archival copy or continued access online. I would imagine, although it is not stated, that as long as we have any online Wiley content we will have access to purchased content online. While we subscribe we have access back to 1997, if available. I would not expect them to continue access to unpurchased content after cancellation.

Usage data: This is a change. At one point the EAL was required for usage data but that is no longer true. Both the FAQ and the license indicate that BAL license users will have usage data.

The benefits they list at their FAQ for all subscribers: Free access to Counter-compliant usage data; unlimited concurrent users, free course-pack and walk-in user access; content back to 1997 where available and perpetual access to content back to 1997.

We have a few things to negotiate with Wiley – our institution prefers licenses to be silent on governing law if we can’t have Minnesota and we would like to have a co-signed license. But in all the important ways, we are thrilled with the BAL.

So, these are our experiences. This is all good for UST.

I thought I would share some of the comments I got back from colleagues from various lists. Because some were directed just to me, I am going to have them all be anonymous.

Overall, what I see is that Wiley has replaced Elsevier as the least valued ‘partner’ in the scholarly communication chain. Because we have a choice, we are comfortable doing business with Wiley.

Her e-mail, with comments from her colleagues, can be found at the SERIALST Archive.

A post on the SERIALST list yesterday by Linda Hulbert, Associate Director of Collection Management and Services at the O’Shaughnessy-Frey Library in St. Paul, Minnesota details one library’s response to contractual conditions being imposed by Wiley.  I found it interesting because it highlights the challenges facing not only libraries, but content providers, and the perils of inflexibility.

The entire post can be found on the SERIALST Archive; I am including a large part of it in this post:

Another company is looking at the Elsevier model and using it. Unfortunately, unlike Elsevier where a library might get more content than they could pay for and unlike Elsevier which does not require that a library participate, Wiley is requiring all multi-site libraries to have a no-cancellation, minimum life time spend. Add insult to injury, we are not a multi-site library by any other vendor’s definition! But Wiley has designated us so. Without recourse.

So, I am sending this letter to many people at Wiley and in the library community. Please, help resist these kinds of publisher practices.

*****
I am writing to you today in your capacity as someone concerned with [higher education, customer service] at John Wiley and Sons.

Wiley provides an EAL license which has three major features: two year agreement, a guaranteed minimum spend (no cancellations without adding titles) (ala Elsevier) and, for that ‘lock-in,’ libraries will have a cap on the annual inflationary increases. Wiley requires multi-site libraries – which they have declared we are – enter into an EAL license for electronic journal content.

We have two problems with this rigid requirement:

1. Wiley is now treating my university as a multi-campus university. Let me assure you that all other vendors treat us a single site because, while we have libraries in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have a single IP address, single president, and a single Accounts Payable for all campuses (including Rome which has 4 seminarians studying abroad!).

2. The EAL license is required for all online journal content we purchase from Wiley/Blackwell in 2010. Currently, our online-only spend is about $3,000, our print +online is over $33,000, and our total spend is about $66,000 for journal content with Wiley. What does that mean for the University of St. Thomas? We would not be able to cancel – i.e. lower our ‘current’ spend. That means that as tuition dollars dry up, as the university’s contribution to the libraries shrink, we cannot cancel titles in the Wiley contract. It’s ironic that while we would be locked into a multi-year contract during these incredibly unpredictable and difficult financial times, Wiley could change their title list at will – buying or selling titles as the market dictates.

We have spoken with your representative, Diane Conroy, and there are no alternatives IF we want online journal content from Wiley. She is adamant.

Hence, our only option is to cancel all of our online content. I assume that is not Wiley’s goal but the only one we see available to us since we cannot agree to a multi-year, dollar spend commitment. We will cancel what we can – I can see about $30,000 in cancellations (27 titles) without too much pain. We will purchase print-only in the cases where we have had print +online and we will cancel our online-only and move back to print-only. As we all know, even good content that is print-only will become marginalized by our users and as it does, we’ll easily be able to justify canceling the remaining print titles. And, of course, we will not be purchasing new journal content from Wiley.

When September comes, if we have no agreement with Wiley for 2010 permitting cancellation and permitting single year subscriptions, we will have to take these draconian steps.

I will be sharing this letter with the Wiley board of directors, others in Wiley management, the serials community, the licensing community and other colleagues in the library community.

Thank you for your attention.

We in the library community need to be prepared to bend, but not to break.  If a vendor isn’t meeting us halfway, then we need to consider walking away.  There is always more than one way to achieve our mission, and we have to have that in mind and act accordingly. I hope Wiley takes notice of this library’s action, and looks to see how it can best serve both their customers, as well as their company’s, needs.

The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has weighed in on OCLC’s proposed policy changes.  Of note:

“The proposed policy appears to freeze OCLC’s role in the library community based on historical and current relationships. We share the concern, voiced by many, that the policy hinders rather than encourages innovation, and we urge the Review Board to carefully examine this issue. It is unclear that the policy has been constructed with a focus on an evolving role of OCLC in enhancing the missions of an international library community with diverse and complex interests.”

This may not seem like a strongly worded statement, but take a look at the list of consortia behind the statement (located at the bottom of the statement, linked above).  Is your library, or geographic region, represented by one or more of these?  Based on the consortia I recognize, this statement has thousands of libraries behind it.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you shall go far”, Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic statement, applies very well to this statement.

My own addition to the current state of events is that the broad-based library community needs to be strongly involved with the record use policy, especially now that OCLC has solidly entered the ILS arena with their new WorldCat functionality.  If they are able to use access and use of the records as a way to encourage/coerce/retain customers, they likely someday will.  It makes good business sense, even if it is lousy public relations.

Further reading:

blog.ecorrado.us

Thingology

Bibliographic Wilderness

Proverbial Lone Wolf Librarian

This post will contain just a couple of links, but there is a wealth of information on the other end of each:

• 101 Great Free Sites and Downloads You’ve Probably Never Heard Of has been put together by PC World.  I will bet you have heard of at least a few of these, and I would recommend using this as a starting point in your search for resources and applications (i.e. if you see something helpful, look for other resources that provide the same… PC World sometimes skips great resources for simply new and flashy resources).  found via ResourceShelf
• 30+ Places to Find Creative Commons Media is a post on the SitePoint blog, which is a great resource for web developers.  This list is fairly focused, but many people forget about the treasure trove that is Creative Commons when they look for pictures, sound or other media resources.

ALA TechSource has a brief blogger forum post on the state of E-Book Readers.  The quote that I think is most worth thinking about comes from Jason Griffey:

E-books are the future of reading in a very real way, simply because at some point they will be too cheap to not use. One of my staff brought a receipt to me this week for a laptop that the library bought in 2000. It was $3600. I just priced netbooks for my library, and can get a machine that is ridiculously more powerful than the year-2000 laptop for under $350. The Kindle, and most other e-readers, are hovering around the $350 or so dollar mark right now. In ten years, what will they cost? How can paper continue to compete with Moore’s Law?

Not only does it make sense, for reasons of legality (terms of use) and usability, to wait before purchasing and implementing E-Readers in a library, but it also makes sense from a monetary standpoint.  Amazon’s Kindle is king of the hill right now, but I think the big one is yet to arrive.  Watch for it, however:  when the convergence of price, usability, and usefulness happens, you want to be ready.

Today is the second annual celebration of Document Freedom Day!

So why are open document formats important?  What happens when someone sends you a document created with Microsoft Word 2007, and saved with the default file format?  You get a file with a .docx extension, and you have to find some way to convert it or obtain it in another format.

What happens when you encounter a file from a program you used 10 years ago, when the company is out of business, and you don’t know anyone who still uses it?  This can be more challenging.

The purpose of open document formats is to ensure that the information about how the document was saved is available for any person/company to utilize.  Importers for different programs and standalone converters can be created; the files themselves can sometimes be opened using simpler means.

The most forward-thinking and useful set of open document formats are those from the OASIS project.  They are in use in several programs, but the highest profile of these is OpenOffice.org.  The Open Document Format has proven to be very robust, and stores information in a manner that generally makes them much smaller in size than the Microsoft Office pre-2007 formats (I average about 10% on reports that I generate on a regular basis… that means 10% of the file size, not merely a 10% reduction!).

I like to do this demonstration:  make a copy of a .odt (Open Document Text) file, then change the extension to .zip.  Open the zipped file and start looking around.  Any graphics embedded within the file are saved in a separate folder.  You will find the raw text of the file in files.  All in all, this is a very open way to store and retrieve information from files that you may not be able to open otherwise (plus it is a great way to extract the graphic files).

What can you do to improve things?  Get OpenOffice (or try Go-oo, which bundles some great plugins and configuration settings) and try it out.  It is different from Microsoft Office, but once you are familiar with the menu placements, you can do some wonderful things.

What else?  If you are a Microsoft Office user, you can download and install the converters for ODF files.

Anything else?  Yes… think about what your needs may be for 5, 10, 20 years down the road, and strive to use document formats that will fill those needs effectively.  My recommendation lies with open formats rather than closed.

Added later:  Thanks to Rose Guerrieri, Director of the Kent State University Trumbull Campus Library, for her reminder via the Ohiolink list!

Authors Guild:  Contracts Forced Amazon to Flip on Kindle is an article on CNet.com in which the Authors Guild asserts that Amazon turned off the Kindle’s Text-to-speech function (unless authorized by a book’s publisher) due to contractual obligations, not pressure from the Guild.

The response from Amazon’s spokesperson was simply “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal.”

previously

found via LISNews

Amazon.com has given in to the Publisher’s Guild on the issue of text-to-speech capabilities in the Kindle 2.

In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“  In this statement, they are correct.  If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.

In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:

“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”

To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.

BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers.  Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).

If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain.  It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.

There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine.  OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings.  OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records.  Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations.  Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.

Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.

Research Libraries Clobber OCLC Policy is a title, and a descriptive one at that, for LibraryThing’s report of the ARL’s report on the OCLC licensing policy kerfluffle (I keep coming back to this word).

It is, however, an interesting read, one that holds much for one to consider as events unfold over the next few months.

In addition, Tim Spaulding states that “The full report makes for enjoyable reading—outside of Dublin, Ohio anyway.”  I have read the report, and can say I found it enjoyable (in the sense of celebrating the expression of shared ideals – I hold no enjoyment that this has become a divisive issue).  I live just a few miles from Dublin, so I suspect that I will have to travel there and re-read the report to see if this statement holds true.

Or perhaps it was meant to be taken figuratively? 

Sending OCLC on its way is a post by Peter Brantley on his Thoughts and Speculations blog.  It focuses on the library world’s reaction to OCLC’s licensing change, and cautions against our overreacting.

He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model.  In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving.  However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.

The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.

found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki

The March 2009 issue of Walt Crawford’s Cites & Insights is devoted to a 30 page essay on the Google Books settlement.  His is an opinion that spans many of the issues : he is at once a writer, fair use advocate, a reader, and a library supporter.

found at Walt at Random

The ARL’s Ad Hoc Task Force has submitted their final report (pdf) on the OCLC license policy change, and there is a great deal of constructive advice for OCLC to use.  The report’s Summary of Recommendations:

1. OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide  community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria.
2. The policy needs to be written in a manner that can be understood and accepted by the community (e.g., as were the prior guidelines). This includes using a positive tone, a full description of Reasonable Use, and a consistent integration with FAQs that will need to be linked to, and thus incorporated in, the policy.
3. The policy statement should include explicit and specific explanation of its intent and how it carries out that intent.
4. Before a policy is implemented, member libraries need an opportunity to analyze how it impacts their operating environments, existing third-party or other agreements, and legal or regulatory environments and resolve implementation questions raised by that review. Specific issues that need more analysis and development in the current proposed policy include: its application to “data extracted from a WorldCat record,” a possible broader definition of Original Cataloging, inconsistencies between the policy and the FAQs (e.g., in allowable uses of Z39.50), the definition of “commercial” use, and the concept of binding downstream users to a separate license. The process for developing the policy with community engagement may uncover additional issues that require more analysis in order to make the policy operational.
5. The policy addressing the use and transfer of WorldCat Records should not apply to records from other OCLC services that make use of WorldCat data, such as Identities. Separate policies should be developed for these services.
6. Recognizing that the policy will be a living document applied in a changing environment, there needs to be a member-community process for ongoing periodic review of applications and interpretations of the policy, e.g., through the work of a continuing review board. Agreements (and denials of agreements) for uses of records, such as those made (or denied) for commercial use, are also integral to the interpretation of how WorldCat records should be used and transferred. Information on these agreements and decisions should be incorporated into the review process.

In essence:  a community-based organization should use community-derived methods for implementing change.

found via ResourceShelf

OCLC announced the members of the Review Board of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship yesterday, save for a member yet to be announced from the European National Library:

• Christopher Cole (FEDLINK): Associate Director for Technical Services, National Agricultural Library
• Poul Erlandsen (EMEA): Head, Document Access Services and Collection Management, Danish University of Education, National Library of Education
• Pat French (OCLC Western): Manager, Collection and Technical Services, Multnomah County Library
• Clifford A. Lynch: Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
• Brian E. C. Schottlaender (OCLC Western): The Audrey Geisel University Librarian, UC San Diego Libraries
• Ted Schwitzner (ILLINET): Head, Bibliographic Services Division, Illinois State University, Milner Library
• Roberta Shaffer (FLICC/FEDLINK/LC): Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Library of Congress
• Lamar Veatch (COSLA/SOLINET): State Librarian, Georgia Public Library Service—University System of Georgia
• Elsie Weatherington (SOLINET): Dean, University Library, Virginia State University
• Jennifer Younger (INCOLSA): Edward H. Arnold Director of Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame

I do not know anyone from this list, nor do I know of them, but I like the that they are drawn from a fairly wide range of libraries.  At this point I have every confidence that they will approach their duties with the best of intentions.  Theirs will be a challenging task, and one which will be watched and commented on closely.

In the same announcement, OCLC posted an e-mail address for questions and comments:  reviewboard@oclc.org .  I encourage everyone who has an interest in how the records are to be licensed and/or used to compose their views and send them to the board.  Every viewpoint, every arguement, every communication sends a message.  The library community created and nurtured OCLC as it exists, the library community created and nurtured the bibliographic records that are at the heart of this matter; the library community should make its wishes known.

found via ResourceShelf

Open Solutions for Libraries Gain Momentum is an article on Information Today which gives an excellent overview of the current state of library data and sharing.  Not only does it present the current struggle with OCLC’s licensing efforts with a fair approach, it also presents the up-and-coming players such as LibLime, Open Library and biblios.net.

This is one of those articles that is good for updating those not deeply involved in libraryland.

found via LISNews

If you have been concerned about the possible effects of the global financial crisis on libraries, you aren’t alone.  The International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) has issued a statement that is not only short, succinct, and dire, but also proposes some solutions that would not only aid libraries and consortia, but the content providers from whom they purchase.

ICOLC Economic Statement.

This is a very powerful and constructive statement which is meant to initiate some significant changes in the way resources are offered, selected, and purchased.  My compliments to those who crafted the statement; it is a good, proactive document.  Adopting its suggestions will benefit everyone.  From the statements:

“While there may be practical limits to this principle, publishers, authors, scholars, and libraries will be best served by those solutions that retain as much access to as much content as possible.”

Note that there are many, many adopters of this statement, including CARLI in Illinois, as well as INFOhio, OHIOLink, OhioNet, and OPLIN, all in Ohio.  Check the list at the bottom of the statement to see if your consortial partners have adopted it.

found via the Disruptive Library Technology Jester

A few links of note:

• Library Journal has an overview of the panel session – OCLC Defends Records Policy, Faces Questions, Suggestions, and Criticisms.
• Karen Calhoun, Vice President OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services, has posted the slides from her presentation.
• The Disruptive Technology Library Jester blog has a couple of posts well worth reading – Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy and Further Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy.

I sincerely hope that Karen Calhoun and OCLC are taking into consideration that a licensing structure similar to Creative Commons (to name one that many people have become familiar with) can be a win-win situation, allowing for quality control and prevent reselling of records, while still allowing for sharing and creative use of the data within the records.

Data, Copyrights and Slogans, Oh My! is a post on the Common Knowledge blog discussing the idea that data is not subject to copyright.  With the OCLC kerfluffle still echoing about the libibliogosphere, it stands out as a nice, succinct argument – and one that is not specifically about library catalogs.

Update: Data, Copyrights, and Slogans, part II has been posted (27 January 2009)

found via Open Access News

Why you can’t find a library book in your search engine is an article in The Guardian.  It is a good overview of the broader issues surrounding the OCLC Licensing problem, and is written for the general reader (i.e. this is the article you should recommend to all your non-library friends (and perhaps even some of your library friends).

found on Librarian.net

Karen Coyle wrote an excellent post about OCLC’s delayed implementation of the records licensing policy.  An exerpt:

Those of us who promote open access must use this time wisely.

• First, we need to get some solid legal advice. It’s clear that OCLC can propose any kind of conditions in a contract and hope to get signers; it’s less clear that OCLC can impose a contract on members 1) without their explicit agreement 2) that covers data created before the contract becomes valid 3) that binds third parties to the contract.
• Next, anyone who has bibliographic data should release it “into the wild” as quickly as possible. Once the data is circulating, it will not be possible to withdraw it. One solution is to create database dumps and to upload these to the Internet Archive. They will be there for downloading by others, and some of the data may end up in the Open Library. Assuming that bibliographic records cannot be covered by copyright, all of this data ends up in the public domain to fuel innovation and creativity.

If enough people take advantage of this extra time to better understand the copyright issues as well as to provide the data stored in their systems to open repositories, the message that will be sent not only to OCLC but everyone involved with libraries will be this:

We are more interested in services and sharing than in ownership.  Our values and our culture are built from this premise.  Organizations and companies that wish to work with us need to understand this, and they need to provide services and sharing as their top priority.  Since this is what we value, whis is what we will reward.