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

Thu Jan 13 22:34:12 UTC 2011

Hi James

I think you make some fair points about the differences between academic/non-commercial and commercial uses.  The situation is not identical, as you explain very nicely - but the point I was trying to make is that (in my opinion) the differences in the activities, economics, motivations and competitiveness between the commercial and academic sectors are not as big as many people generally assume.

I might not have explained myself very well but I think I was being consistent.  I think people *SHOULD* only have to pay companies for the value added by their service on top of open data, so I think they should only pay once (contributing through taxation towards collecting, collating and publishing the data).

But if the company must pay a licence fee to use the public sector data commercially (which I think they shouldn't have to), then the end user would effectively pay twice. 

Cheers

Bill

On 13 Jan 2011, at 21:34, James McKinney wrote:

> 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?