I read Rich Greene's comments with interest, and would like specifically
to address 14/6. I should perhaps declare an interest as a someone who
works for an institution which is a member of the Consortium of
University Research Libraries (CURL), and who is also as a member of
CURL's Resource Discovery and Description Steering Group. (I write here
in a personal capacity, though, lest there be any confusion.)
Rich (and Glenn, whom he was quoting) are right to point to the
importance of the US philosophy, and to highlight the achievements of
the PCC. I have no quarrel with that. But MARC 21 is more than a US
format - it has to serve an international community. Just this week my
own library is making the switch from UKMARC to MARC 21 (at last!). In
the outside world (as viewed from the US) things are not as simple as
Rich would like. Some of us don't have OCLC's power and can't simply
"walk away" from contract discussions if we don't like the way they're
headed.
The following clause in one of the contracts we hold is by no means
unusual:
"... Member shall not remove from any records selected by it ... any
copyright notice or other notice identifying the record as derived from
[xxx's] Catalogue"
In other words, the contract is reminding the user/customer that the
original provider has rights in the record and that the flag indicating
that fact should be retained.
In UKMARC there's a byte in the 008 field that can store that flag (the
byte as defined is broader in scope than simply "record content owner").
My reading of the proposal before MARBI is that this is a partial
replacement for that byte, retaining only the most vital element of its
coverage.
Different contracts and licence agreements have different requirements
and restrictions, of course, but the consistent feature is essentially
"who owns the rights in this record".
Being altruistic I'd rather all catalogue data be in the public domain
(and free, whilst we're at it...), but life isn't that simple, and if
the only way we can obtain data is by signing up to a contract that
requires us to retain a copyright notice some other mark of "ownership",
then it's often a case of "beggars can't be choosers" as we say over
here.
So there is a very real, practical need to be able to carry this
information. And I fail to see why providing a field to support the
function should be seen as a "threat" - it simply reflects a reality
(albeit an unpleasant one). Many data creators and providers assert
their property rights, and the library world isn't immune from that.
Surely we're not suggesting that the provision of this field is going to
unleash a flood of restrictions where previously none existed?
I hope MARBI members are able to take an international perspective when
discussing this issue. Only a system implementation here prevents me
from attending in person. Have a good meeting!
Incidentally, the clause I quoted above is taken from our own contract
with CURL for the supply of records from Rich and Glenn's own employer.
It's a funny world sometimes.
--
Hugh Taylor
Head of Cataloguing, Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England
email: [log in to unmask] fax: +44 (0)1223 339973
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)
|