Re: [gutvol-d] Categorizing PG content
How is it that the OCLC can enforce such a claim when the DDS was first written in 1870 (according to their website)? Shouldn't it be out of copyright and therefore open for anyone to use?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Sly" <sly@victoria.tc.ca>
Drawbacks: Intellectual rights claims may limit usage. (OCLC claims rights to use this system and licences it out to libraries.)
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:40:58 -0500, "Joshua Hutchinson" <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote: |How is it that the OCLC can enforce such a claim when the DDS was first written in 1870 (according to their website)? Shouldn't it be out of copyright and therefore open for anyone to use? | | |> ----- Original Message ----- |> From: "Andrew Sly" <sly@victoria.tc.ca> |> > Drawbacks: |> > Intellectual rights claims may limit usage. (OCLC claims rights |> > to use this system and licences it out to libraries.) There will be a 1922 version which we could use. -- Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> "Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*. "Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*. More like "Incompetent design". Sig (C) Copyright Public Domain
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:40:58 -0500, "Joshua Hutchinson" <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
|How is it that the OCLC can enforce such a claim when the DDS was first written in 1870 (according to their website)? Shouldn't it be out of copyright and therefore open for anyone to use? | | |> ----- Original Message ----- |> From: "Andrew Sly" <sly@victoria.tc.ca> |> > Drawbacks: |> > Intellectual rights claims may limit usage. (OCLC claims rights |> > to use this system and licences it out to libraries.)
There will be a 1922 version which we could use.
Looking at the site: http://www.oclc.org/dewey/ I see this notice at the bottom of the page: All copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification system are owned by OCLC. Dewey, Dewey Decimal Classification, DDC, OCLC and WebDewey are registered trademarks of OCLC. In other words, they are taking everything they can get. DDC is regularly revised. (I believe the 22nd edition is latest) Modern Dewey is significantly different from its original publication. Also, the term is trademarked. However, I'm not saying "No, this is impossible." A good thing about the wiki approach is that it (hopefully) encourages different concurrent approaches. I'm just suggesting that if PG ends up having a high-profile use of DDC, OCLC might object. A drawback of using some old version is consistency with what is current. Not only have many new headings been added over time, but there has been much revising and moving headings from one place to another.
There's also the problem that there's not just one "modern Dewey". The DDC as used outside the U.S. (the UDC) is significantly different from the DDC within the U.S. At least, that was true when I was last a cataloger; I've been out of the field for fifteen years. -- Meredith Dixon <dixonm@pobox.com> Check out *Raven Days* <www.ravendays.org> For victims and survivors of bullying at school. And for those who want to help.
I don't think a wiki entry per book is a very elegant or scalable way to approach this. I have an alternate suggestion that I'd like to put together, but won't have anything to show until Friday.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is my $0.02: I think that the Dewey-decimal system is the best of all the options. The main advantage I see it having is that it would be easy to extract and work with when building collections. It would also be easy to use to find books from a particular subject. However, just because we have the Dewey system, I don't think that would mean that we couldn't have a wiki as well. A wiki is great because it would allow readers to categorize books beyond what was offered by Dewey. As far as the legal constraints go, you can see what Wikipedia is doing to over come (or not) this limitation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dewey_Decimal_System Sincerely Aaron Cannon - -- Skype: cannona MSN/Windows Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (don't send email to the hotmail address.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959 Comment: Key available from all major key servers. iD8DBQFEsoIvI7J99hVZuJcRAgXlAJ9QaBmGsH715P1IxMx7Hy+jTq5b4wCg423d DvZedGOX4nbqPVsFUord/VI= =p9UN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In article <20060710154059.1A38E9EEE3@ws6-2.us4.outblaze.com>, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> writes
How is it that the OCLC can enforce such a claim when the DDS was first written in 1870 (according to their website)? Shouldn't it be out of copyright and therefore open for anyone to use?
Simply using the DDS does not necessarily require making a copy of any DDS specification. To give an analogy. You don't breach copyright by following the diet presented a diet book. -- Philip Baker
On 7/10/06, Philip Baker <phil@thalasson.com> wrote:
Simply using the DDS does not necessarily require making a copy of any DDS specification. To give an analogy. You don't breach copyright by following the diet presented a diet book.
But following a diet is a personal action that doesn't fix anything in a permanent format. Using the DDS to categorize a library is to create something in physical permanent form, that basically embodies the system in such a way that the system could more or less be extracted from our catalog. That's a whole different issue, and I think a judge might well rule in favor of them on it. It is, IMO, creating a legally actionable deriviative work.
Suggestion: have a competition to design an open-source cataloging system for e-books, where there are no physical constraints on "shelving." Publicize it in library schools. Major ego-boo for the teacher/graduate student whose scheme is accepted, free design for PG. -- Zora aka Karen Lofstrom
participants (9)
-
Aaron Cannon -
Andrew Sly -
Dave Fawthrop -
David Starner -
joey -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Karen Lofstrom -
Meredith Dixon -
Philip Baker