This is a really interesting post and I have to agree with Thingology both that OCLC has lots of nice people working on great projects, and that their business model seems to rely too much on “owning” the data that libraries create about their own collections. I think it hampers libraries who are non-members AND those who are members.

If this opens up proprietary systems to the outside world even a little this will be worth it.

Much of what I catalog in not in OCLC, I know because I check Open WorldCat. Yet $1200.00 a year for membership is not in the budget. That is another journal we would have to cancel.

Another place I feel this lack of access is that I can’t contribute to NACO unless I join OCLC. Yet here I am with the authors. They all stop in at least once a year.

So my not being able to afford OCLC hurts not only my library but other libraries and researchers as well.

What would help to solve the digital divide problems that you so eloquently discuss are: 1) OCLC eliminating or drastically reducing membership fees, 2) OCLC stopping its attempts to hold members’ MARC data hostage, 3) OCLC opening access to its records and systems by outside vendors and open-source operations (though, to be fair, there is some of this going on as can be seen in there OAI project).

A few years ago the Idaho Commission for Libraries worked with OCLC to develop a statewide program (through OCLC’s Group Services program) whereby unlimited statewide access was negotiated. Because it is such a great benefit to the state’s residents, about half the costs are covered at the State level. The remaining costs are shared (propotionately by size of library) by libraries that want to take advantage of the huge discount. The smallest libraries pay just $300 a year for unlimited access to OCLC cataloging and ill. The entire state has access to a statewide catalog that is really a subset of WorldCat.

The result now is that when a user searches WorldCat.or or Google (“Find a Book”) or use the link from our LiLI Program (www.lili.org), they actually get links to those those small, rural libraries in our state.

It doesn’t solve the digital divide, but it has made it possible for a lot of our rural libraries to take advantage of the tools that, previously, seemed as if they were only accessible to large libraries with bigger budgets. Is it perfect? No. $300 is still too much for some libraries. Are we in a better place than before? Are we improving? Yes.

That digital divide? One of our biggest challenges with it is not OCLC, it’s connectivity. How do you get high-speed Internet access to locations with outdated phone lines that go down when it snows?