3 ms·

They really aren't. If you want to scratch your head, read about Bowker and ISBN.

vanderZwan 9y ago
So I just googled "Bowker", never having heard of them before, but I have a suspicion Google only serves me the version of the story that Bowker itself is telling the world. However, using wikipedia: > "Bowker is the exclusive U.S. agent for issuing International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs), a universal method of identifying books in print. (...) It is now owned by Cambridge Information Group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.R._Bowker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.R._Bowker Cambridge Information Group? click > "Cambridge Information Group (CIG) is a privately owned group of information services and publishing companies and educational institutions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Information_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Information_Group Ok... that kind of sounds like conflicts of interest waiting to happen. Not to mention ISBNs being the kind of fundamental infrastructure/natural monopoly combination where I definitely would not want to see a for-profit entity be in charge of it. But that's just my gut-feelings. How does this set-up play out in practice?
- libx 9y ago
  Maybe someone could use the blockchain to issue some kind of ISBN numbers...
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  Well researched, apologies for my sloth! In a nutshell they have a monopoly and their fees for licensing are extortionate - and they won't even talk to you unless you're "very serious". They crushed a startup I consulted with eight years or so ago by playing along and then vastly increasing their fees just prior to launch. Also, their only API (I haven't checked but I doubt things have changed) is EDI. So, they have important and valuable data that they don't like to license, and make hard to access when they do. I don't think that something of such importance should be in the hands of a private entity.

So I just googled "Bowker", never having heard of them before, but I have a suspicion Google only serves me the version of the story that Bowker itself is telling the world. However, using wikipedia: > "Bowker is the exclusive U.S. agent for issuing International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs), a universal method of identifying books in print. (...) It is now owned by Cambridge Information Group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.R._Bowker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.R._Bowker Cambridge Information Group? click > "Cambridge Information Group (CIG) is a privately owned group of information services and publishing companies and educational institutions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Information_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Information_Group Ok... that kind of sounds like conflicts of interest waiting to happen. Not to mention ISBNs being the kind of fundamental infrastructure/natural monopoly combination where I definitely would not want to see a for-profit entity be in charge of it. But that's just my gut-feelings. How does this set-up play out in practice?

libx 9y ago
Maybe someone could use the blockchain to issue some kind of ISBN numbers...
madaxe_again 9y ago
Well researched, apologies for my sloth! In a nutshell they have a monopoly and their fees for licensing are extortionate - and they won't even talk to you unless you're "very serious". They crushed a startup I consulted with eight years or so ago by playing along and then vastly increasing their fees just prior to launch. Also, their only API (I haven't checked but I doubt things have changed) is EDI. So, they have important and valuable data that they don't like to license, and make hard to access when they do. I don't think that something of such importance should be in the hands of a private entity.