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

Fri Jan 14 11:14:58 UTC 2011

>
> '. This does not rule out that geeks will probably build awesome
> apps on top of data, being citizens and inspired by their own itches that
> need scratching (use cases).
>
>
of course :-)


> James
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Bill, and all
>>
>> (thats when taking part in interesting discussions becomes a full time
>> job)
>>
>> The points  in your  post  yesterday are acceptable, but do not exhaust
>> the issue, which probably resonates beyond the terms we are discussing here
>>
>> Here is what worries me:
>>
>> open datasets (much like linked data) are not per se useful  information
>> to citizens (non geeks).. They are only useful when they can be queried and
>> 'used'.
>>
>> However  Governments open up the data, but do not provide the application
>> layer needed to make this data useful (ie, to provide information) , then
>> the benefits to the wider public are limited
>>
>> If these applications are then developed commercially, presumably on a fee
>> basis, this results in that open government information becomes only a paid
>> for service, that is: I can only obtain useful information and a nice
>> service if I buy some application. Otherwise I cannot make sense of this
>> data because there is no tool provided to go with it. (or a crap one). This
>> to me is unacceptable.
>>
>> I much rather see Governments use tax payers money to also develop the
>> application layer on top of the data as a free service, and team up with
>> entrepreneurs and private companies to provide that service - provided the
>> procurement, financing, administration and management of such projects is
>> openly and transparently carried out, and that requirements and
>> specifications include the inputs of citizens and general users (I dont like
>> to see when the coder writes the specs themselves based on the presumption
>> that's what the end user wants, etc)
>>
>> Would be interested to see what scenario you envisage
>>
>> PDM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Bill Roberts <bill at swirrl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> euopendata mailing list
>>> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> euopendata mailing list
>> euopendata at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/euopendata
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Web: www.lifesized.net  Phone:+31 (0)6 5244 6445 Twitter: @lifesized
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/euopendata/attachments/20110114/d120467b/attachment-0001.html>