It's also unclear to what extent bibliographic records are copyrightable, as "facts" are not copyrightable. (At least in the US). It's not clear they _aren't_,

It's also unclear to what extent bibliographic records are copyrightable, as "facts" are not copyrightable. (At least in the US). It's not clear they _aren't_, at least some elements, but it's also not clear they are. OR, if they WERE copyrightable, that the copyright would belong to OCLC rather than the thousands of libraries which contributed them (generally without compensation). It is noteable that OCLC does not really mention copyright or any copyright grounds in the lawsuit. It really does seem to be a case of "we think we can make violating ToS a violation of this Ohio law against hacking." As a librarian-software-engineer myself, it is sad to me how the rich ecosystem of cooperatively owned library consortia of the 20th century, which operated non-profit in interest aligned with those of their member-owners... has been largely consolidated into enormous ostensibly "non-profit" coroporations which act as if the might as well be for-profits, trying to maximize revenue from their "member" customers, and regardless of any larger mission or values their library members purportedly have.