[euopendata] Study says charge for public data...

[James McKinney]

I appreciate the important points raised by the last two comments. To
summarize the arguments as I understand them:

1. It is expensive to charge for commercial use.
2. After subtracting expenses from (1), charging for commercial use
generates little revenue.
3. It's difficult to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial uses.

I've written about (3) earlier. I'll grant (1), because I don't know
any better. But I'll have to see some figures for (2). I don't expect
a government to make a complete recovery of costs through the sale of
data. But I don't think that, in all possible worlds, the revenue will
always be small either. That's a big claim. But, again, we are on
pragmatic arguments - which are fine with me, but, if that's all there
is, I think people should omit the often ideological tone in their
messages.

I don't believe Andy's points about startups providing the only
innovation, with big companies doing nothing but acquiring, merging,
and cutting jobs. Small, innovative startups make for good stories.
With few exceptions like Apple, few people are excited to hear about
the innovations going on at IBM, HP, AT&T, GE, Nestle, Walmart,
Microsoft, Nintendo, Nokia, etc. - but they do happen. And even big
companies create new jobs!

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Bill Roberts <bill at swirrl.com> wrote:
> Getting a little more abstract, what is really the difference between (1) a commercial company using the data to make a useful service which their customers pay for, and (2) a research institution bidding for funding to use the data in some kind of research project?  In the research case, the 'customer' of the institution is a tax-payer funded organisation that concludes they are adding some value to the data they use and is willing to pay them to do it.  Sounds a lot like case (1).

Here's how I see it:

Situation A: A government gives a grant to an institution that will
use government data non-commercially.
Situation B: A company uses government data commercially to build a service.

In both A and B, the user of the government data gets money from
people who consider their activities/services worthwhile. If the
government has a non-commercial license, then the institution pays no
usage fees, but the company does. Is this unfair? I don't think so.
The institution is likely making non-commercial, rather than
commercial, use of the data only because there is not a sufficient
market for its research - research that is nonetheless valuable to
society according to the government, hence the grant. Maybe the
research is a study on a marginalized group (depending on region) like
aboriginals, or single mothers, or people with disabilities, or the
homeless, for which there is no/little market. The government helps
the institution because the market will not. I am not convinced that
the government must help the company in this scenario.

Andy brings up a similar point. which I simplify here:

Situation C: A government offers its data for free for non-commercial uses.
Situation D: A government gives a grant to a startup to build a
commercial service.

In both C and D, the government is offering something of value. If C,
it is offering it to non-commercial users only. In D, to commercial
users only. I don't see a problem here. If you are a non-commercial
operation and want the gov to give you value, you get it. If you are a
commercial operation and want the gov to give you value, you need to
apply.

By the way, Bill, first you say that customers are only paying for the
value added to the data, and then say that customers are paying twice
for the data (once to the government to create it, and once to the
company to provide it). Which is it?