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

Fri Jan 14 23:42:39 UTC 2011

James,

you are right, of course also many large companies create innovations (and patent them) and new jobs by themselves, although, many do it by acquiring SMEs. I think the point Ton has made in a later post (January 14, 2011 12:16:32 PM GMT+01:00) is very important:

He said that prices have consequences (his bullet #2). Prices will create thresholds for new entrants to the market. Firstly, it is important to note, that even if data is free, developing new applications and prototypes creates costs (maybe only in terms of time for students or hobbyists, they might have no money but spend tons of freetime). But if data is additionally billed (in terms of money), then the so-called "Long Tail" of hobbyists, students, geeks, startups, potential founders, etc. will be cut resulting in a loss of innovation in the end. For the bigger players, it might be still affordable to invest money into such ventures. However, usually (at least that's my observation), big players join the crowd once it is likely that there is a market to earn money with. Moreover, besides the loss of innovativation and chance for new companies and jobs, the chance that appz for minorities would be created by hobbyists and individuals will be close to zero.

Regars,
Andy

On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:34 PM, 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