One important thing to remember is that there's no "master database" of ISBNs. The central agency assigns very large blocks (eg 978-0-...), then national agencies assign smaller blocks to publishers (978-0-12-...), who then choose to assign them to books as and when they see fit.
The final assigners (publishers) keep records, which they usually make available to the book trade - this is the material that winds up in bookseller databases, and which you can see through Amazon. This may or many not have database-right issues, and comes originally from hundreds or thousands of individual publishers. Someone probably sells it in some way but I'm not particularly clear on this side of things. Independently, after publication, libraries acquire copies of the books and create their own records (sometimes they copy each other's records, but usually from another library not from the book trade). These library databases have their own database-right issues - some make them available without restrictions, some claim copyright, some hand them over to third-party services who may themselves claim copyright, etc etc. Again, there's a lot of library databases - there are attempts to produce a single aggregated database like WorldCat, but once you do that you definitely start getting into access rights issues. The only systematic attempt to make an unencumbered database is Open Library - but that is no doubt incomplete. https://openlibrary.org/help/faq/using#ownership Andrew. On 22 September 2014 15:52, Anthony <o...@theendput.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Thomas Douillard > <thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Running an automated process to access someone's computer in a way that >> > they clearly don't allow is not a good idea. >> >> European database laws are also really on the fact that a protected >> database copy is a copy, whatever the copy process is. Does not matter if an >> automated process took place or if a crowd take facts one by one, once there >> is a significant portion of the datas copied (whatever that means) there is >> a juridical risk. > > > Yeah, its not clear to me how you could ever produce an ISBN database with > any reasonable level of assurance that it's legit under those rules. With > copyright you find multiple sources and put things in your own words. You > cite your sources, and anyone can check that your sources provide the > *information* which you have restated in your own words. While it's always > possible that you plagiarized one source while citing another, these things > can be discovered, and when two sources use the exact same words, copying is > evident. With sui generis database laws, there's no way to really know if > your multiple sources all are based on the same common source, and there's > no way to "put things in your own words" to ensure that it doesn't matter. > Moreover, the fact that one source has the exact same true factual > information as another doesn't prove that one copied from another. > > Aren't any of these databses copied, at least indirectly, from the database > created by International ISBN Agency? > > In any case, my point was that blatant violation of a TOS is more than just > violation of "a private contract". It's at least potentially something much > more serious. And on that, it matters quite a bit whether it's one person > running an automated process or a group of people accessing the information > bit by bit. The former got a brilliant young Wikimedian prosecuted. The > latter hasn't. > > -- > > By the way, I just read > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights and it's not clear > to me exactly what the Wikimedia policy is with regard to sui generis > database rights. The closest I see is "In the absence of a license, copying > all or a substantial part of a protected database should be avoided." But > what happens when thousands of people, working independently even, each copy > an insubstantial portion of a protected database, and it adds up? I guess > from a practical standpoint it'll be impossible to prove that this is what > happened (unless there's a protected database which *created* the > information in the first place, a la the one created by the International > ISBN Agency). But then what we're really saying is not that you shouldn't > violate European database law, but that you should do it in a way such that > it can't be proven. > > As I said above, I don't know how these laws can possibly be adhered to with > any reasonable level of assurance. Maybe you or someone else on here has a > suggestion? > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
