Re: [Koha] Use of Amazon reviews etc illegal?
Nicole and all: I just discovered that Jesse Haro reported last March that library catalog use of Amazon material was forbidden by Amazon as contrary to the terms of the Amazon Associates Web Service . Re: Use of Amazon.com Content in Koha's Catalog From : Jesse Haro <<mailto:jesse.haro_at_nyob?Subject=Re:%20%20Use%20of%20Amazon.com%20Content%20in%20Koha%27s%20Catalog>jesse.haro_at_nyob> Date : Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:17 -0700 To : NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU I have been following the trail of conversation regarding Amazon.com and thought it worth sharing our recent experience with Amazon. I oversee the OPAC environment for Phoenix Public and was the lead in implementing Amazon product data not only into our OPAC, but also directly into our bibliographic data for searching. We have implemented Endeca for our OPAC and have implemented various product elements into the search index. Following the release of the Customer Service Agreement from Amazon this past December, we requested clarification from Amazon regarding the use of AWS for library catalogs and received the following response: "Thank you for contacting Amazon Web Services. Unfortunately your application does not comply with section 5.1.3 of the AWS Customer Agreement. We do not allow Amazon Associates Web Service to be used for library catalogs. Driving traffic back to Amazon must be the primary purpose for all applications using Amazon Associates Web Service." This response came from the support contact link on the AWS help pages. We are investigating the possibility of establishing a direct relationship with Amazon, however it appears that using AWS for purposes other than section 5.1.3 is in violation of their agreement. We have subsequently removed much of the Amazon content from our OPAC and are looking into other sources of enriched data. Jesse Haro, Web Services Manager Phoenix Public Library [END OF QUOTE FROM JESSE HARO] The customer service agreement has since been updated -- there does not seem to be a 5.1.3 now, and I could not find any express prohibition, but someone at Koha needs to officially contact Amazon to see if this is still the case. Otherwise all the work to access Amazon content on Koha OPACs may be a waste of time and its implementation may leave libraries open to a lawsuit from Amazon. It's too bad. I notice that apart from 'Google covers', all the other 'content enriching' services such as from Baker and Taylor or Syndetics require payment. Mike Mason At Sunday 14/02/2010, you wrote:
Mike thanks,
I had gone to AWS today and saw that there was no 'private key' which is what it used to be called - but that it was now a secret key - so glad that you see the same thing as me.
Nicole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM, <mcmlists@people.net.au> wrote:
Hi Nicole,
My statement that "what we call the Amazon private key is really the Amazon Secret Access Key" was based on the following: I have just set up my Amazon associate ID and AWS access keys in Amazon, and the site described two keys as follows: (this is cut and pasted from Amazon's Associates' "Manage your account" page:) You will need access identifiers to call the Product Advertising API, authenticate requests and identify yourself as the sender of a request. Two types of identifiers are available: AWS Access Key Identifiers (Public and Secret Keys) and X.509 Certificates.
The site guides you to set up the Public and Secret keys. It does not mention a "Private key". So I assumed that what you referred to in the 3.2 manual as a "Private Key" was meant to indicate Amazon's "Secret Key". But perhaps you had something else in mind?
Unfortunately I can't test this as I'm on Liblime's Koha Express, which is still back in Koha 3.00.02.012 and has no system preference entries for Amazon reviews or for the Secret/Private key.
Mike Mason
At Sunday 14/02/2010, you wrote:
Hi all,
I want to confirm that what we call the Amazon private key is really the Amazon Secret Access Key. If so I want to update the language in the manual and the sys prefs page -but I want to be sure before I do that.
Nicole _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
If so this explicitly contradicts what Joshua Ferraro was told by Amazon.com when Amazon functionality was first being formally integrated into Koha. I remember a mailing list post on the subject but now I can't find it. Does anyone else remember? A starting point for finding the answer to this would be find out under what terms Amazon content use *was* allowed. -- Owen 2010/2/14 <m.mason@ytu.edu.au>:
Nicole and all:
I just discovered that Jesse Haro reported last March that library catalog use of Amazon material was forbidden by Amazon as contrary to the terms of the
Amazon Associates Web Service
.
Re: Use of Amazon.com Content in Koha's Catalog
From : Jesse Haro < jesse.haro_at_nyob> Date : Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:17 -0700 To : NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
I have been following the trail of conversation regarding Amazon.com and thought it worth sharing our recent experience with Amazon. I oversee the OPAC environment for Phoenix Public and was the lead in implementing Amazon product data not only into our OPAC, but also directly into our bibliographic data for searching. We have implemented Endeca for our OPAC and have implemented various product elements into the search index. Following the release of the Customer Service Agreement from Amazon this past December, we requested clarification from Amazon regarding the use of AWS for library catalogs and received the following response:
"Thank you for contacting Amazon Web Services. Unfortunately your application does not comply with section 5.1.3 of the AWS Customer Agreement. We do not allow Amazon Associates Web Service to be used for library catalogs. Driving traffic back to Amazon must be the primary purpose for all applications using Amazon Associates Web Service."
This response came from the support contact link on the AWS help pages. We are investigating the possibility of establishing a direct relationship with Amazon, however it appears that using AWS for purposes other than section 5.1.3 is in violation of their agreement. We have subsequently removed much of the Amazon content from our OPAC and are looking into other sources of enriched data.
Jesse Haro, Web Services Manager Phoenix Public Library
[END OF QUOTE FROM JESSE HARO]
The customer service agreement has since been updated -- there does not seem to be a 5.1.3 now, and I could not find any express prohibition, but
someone at Koha needs to officially contact Amazon to see if this is still the case. Otherwise all the work to access Amazon content on Koha OPACs may be a waste of time and its implementation may leave libraries open to a lawsuit from Amazon.
It's too bad. I notice that apart from 'Google covers', all the other 'content enriching' services such as from Baker and Taylor or Syndetics require payment.
Mike Mason
At Sunday 14/02/2010, you wrote:
Mike thanks,
I had gone to AWS today and saw that there was no 'private key' which is what it used to be called - but that it was now a secret key - so glad that you see the same thing as me.
Nicole
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM, <mcmlists@people.net.au> wrote:
Hi Nicole,
My statement that "what we call the Amazon private key is really the Amazon Secret Access Key" was based on the following: I have just set up my Amazon associate ID and AWS access keys in Amazon, and the site described two keys as follows: (this is cut and pasted from Amazon's Associates' "Manage your account" page:) You will need access identifiers to call the Product Advertising API, authenticate requests and identify yourself as the sender of a request. Two types of identifiers are available: AWS Access Key Identifiers (Public and Secret Keys) and X.509 Certificates.
The site guides you to set up the Public and Secret keys. It does not mention a "Private key". So I assumed that what you referred to in the 3.2 manual as a "Private Key" was meant to indicate Amazon's "Secret Key". But perhaps you had something else in mind?
Unfortunately I can't test this as I'm on Liblime's Koha Express, which is still back in Koha 3.00.02.012 and has no system preference entries for Amazon reviews or for the Secret/Private key.
Mike Mason
At Sunday 14/02/2010, you wrote:
Hi all,
I want to confirm that what we call the Amazon private key is really the Amazon Secret Access Key. If so I want to update the language in the manual and the sys prefs page -but I want to be sure before I do that.
Nicole _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org
Owen asked:
If so this explicitly contradicts what Joshua Ferraro was told by Amazon.com when Amazon functionality was first being formally integrated into Koha. I remember a mailing list post on the subject but now I can't find it. Does anyone else remember? A starting point for finding the answer to this would be find out under what terms Amazon content use *was* allowed.
Are you sure you're not thinking of what Joshua Ferraro reported from Amazon when I asked whether Opensearch was patented? See http://lists.koha.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2005-July/005341.html (FTWCA history: I aksed because Amazon are notorious patenters of web shop software features and nothing explicitly said opensearch was patent-free. The result of the direct question was never posted AFAICT.) I found a 2008 terms update in http://lists.koha.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2008-March/007358.html and I suspect that Amazon can change the terms of use whenever they wish. For some reason, software.coop only ever enabled the Amazon features if our client accepted the risk of that action - so are you sure that use was ever clearly allowed? Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
Owen asked:
If so this explicitly contradicts what Joshua Ferraro was told by Amazon.com when Amazon functionality was first being formally integrated into Koha. I remember a mailing list post on the subject but now I can't find it. Does anyone else remember? [...]
Not a mailing list post, but I just found http://blogs.liblime.com/developers/2007/04/16/amazoncom-web-services-and-li... which seems pretty good and links to the full agreement so you can check for changes. The blog post summarises it as: "* if content is cached locally, it must be updated every 24 hours; * if you download in real-time, you can only download up to 1000 items per IP address per day; * if you download in real-time, you cannot download more than one item per second per IP address. * if you use their content, you must provide a link back to any Amazon.com page" but I've not checked that. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
<m.mason@...> writes:
search index. Following the release of the Customer Service Agreement from Amazon this past December, we requested clarification from Amazon regarding the use of AWS for library catalogs and received the following response:
"Thank you for contacting Amazon Web Services. Unfortunately your application does not comply with section 5.1.3 of the AWS Customer Agreement. We do not allow Amazon Associates Web Service to be used for library catalogs. Driving traffic back to Amazon must be the primary purpose for all applications using Amazon Associates Web Service."
Hello All, Google Books http://books.google.com has tons of content that other sites don't even have, and that will increase (who else has geographical mentions obtained by scanning the books test?) Since Google provides an API to allow Google content free, would it seem reasonable to enhance the Koha Google API to allow all the new awesome content? Check out the API at: http://code.google.com/apis/books/ I don't have time to work on this unfort., but it would be fun to add. I bet some savvy person out there could toss it in. It is a free API, and Google seems to want people to use it. - Darrell Ulm
participants (4)
-
Darrell Ulm -
m.mason＠ytu.edu.au -
MJ Ray -
Owen Leonard