I am still unable to save individual items accessed in any way from my library http://libraries.wright.edu, and when I try to select from a group on a search page, it does not actually import the item...

I think I can do that, thanks Adam!

I wonder if they're just not aware of this - we get to MARC by replacing "frameset" in the url by "marc" - that works on almost all InnoPAC installations.

But I notice that when I try what your librarian suggest (save record --> view record --> export ---> MARC), but instead of sending it by e-mail try to download it ("Local Disk") or display MARC on the screen ("Screen") that doesn't work. It does on other InnoPAC installations e.g. http://utmost.cl.utoledo.edu/search/?searchtype=X&SORT=D&searcharg=history+of+communication&searchscope=3
my suspicion would be that the two issues are connected and this seems like it's broken on your end.

Also, I was able to save a reference to the above item from Ester that you posted in response to msuvi, so yes, innoPAC does work for me elsewhere. That was what spurred me to post here actually. ;)

So, it seems that they had to remove all of the MARC records from their catalog because of them being illegally downloaded. I don't quite understand how that's possible, but I am likely to find out at the end of this semester when I upload the archival collection I am working on. Our systems librarian has been appraised of my concerns and also has a link to this thread. Perhaps we are on the road to recovery, at least I hope so.

Thanks so much for your help Adam!

no, publishers protect their data better than that. Having an EBSCO (or any other database provider's) item URL doesn't get you anywhere unless you're on an IP range of a subscribing institution (or otherwise authenticated as a user with legal access).

My suspicion is that this really is about the MARC data, which libraries buy for not insignificant amounts of money from OCLC and/or the LoC. But it would seem very odd that this would be an issue for a small library like Wright State, where much larger libraries - Harvard, the LoC etc.- make their individual MARC data easily available. But you'd have to find this out from your librarians.

In would seem to be a perversion of the MARC format to embed PDFs & I don't think that is likely. They may link to them & allow for easier semi-automated downloading. What led you to this hypotehesis?

So, it seems that they had to remove all of the MARC records from their catalog because of them being illegally downloaded.

I personally think this is insane--a MARC record is a routine recitation of facts and is not copyrightable. I've never seen it include full text. It may point to where you can find full text (but this is not copyrightable information). It may include a summary/abstract/etc. & this can be creative, but it should be, at minimum, fair use to store these for the purpose of citation tracking.

That being said, some libraries or data providers have tried to apply a copyright license to MARC records and/or place them under a user agreement that may attempt to curtail certain actions (such as automated or semi-automated downloading).

Some data providers are also reactionary to trends they don't understand (such as the sudden increase in MARC records downloads when they had not been used in the past).

@noksagt; I was told that the amount of traffic that was part of the reason for the removal, so perhaps if our systems librarian peruses this thread they will feel better about keeping it up there.

@adamsmith; Yes, I reread your response and realized I misunderstood about the screen display, and will try Endnote and ProCite formats next.

Neither Endnote or ProCite data would import, I used both displayed data and emailed data. :( I hope they start including the data again.

Excellent! Still more steps than I should have to take, but it gets it done! Worked like a charm, even with multiple entries!

Yeah, I could go to LoC, but since I have a user account at WSU I can just pull up my list of checked out books and, if it were working, import each one with a single click. I suppose, if I used this work around with the Endnote data, and I imported it more than 4 or 5 references at a time, it would actually be fewer steps than importing them one at a time from their item page.

After speaking with a reference librarian in person, what I was told was the bulk downloads were basically taking whole chunks of catalog information, and that the downloads originated from somewhere overseas. One of the explanations was that they found the Toledo system that Zotero suggests to hinder the security of the website. I find this incredibly strange, almost unbelievable, but I guess they are trying to protect what they see as proprietary data. However, they snuck the MARC back in, but they "hid it." So, now you can have the MARC data displayed on the screen with the export tool, but I guess that really doesn't help since I cannot import that data to Zotero.

This is all I was told:

"There were some security concerns when our catalog had the MARC display records easily accessible the way the Toledo system is shown in the example Zotero support provided."

If that's not helpful I am sorry.

Well, one thing I can definitely do is thank you very much for you input and help. I fully agree that I am being placated by reference librarians with bunk explanations, and as a bourgeoning information professional I am borderline insulted by the explanation as well as the removal of the MARC data. I am going to do everything I can to find out what is going on and to make sure this is not some knee jerk reaction to something that our systems librarian does not understand, or that they are trying to force us into using RefWorks which is integrated into the WSU catalog.

It was the screen display method, which shows as a catalog entry on my Zotero button, but still has a translator error.