5 ms·
There are two further elements of this discussion that the article misses. One is the fundamental approach to maximising value from government-created works. T
by halo 15y ago
There are two further elements of this discussion that the article misses.
One is the fundamental approach to maximising value from government-created works. Traditionally, the Crown owns the copyright and then sells them to maximise revenue. The US approach is to make it public domain.
The second issue is that the bar for a creative work covered by copyright is much lower in the UK than in the US. The notorious case is football schedules which are copyrighted, but it also applies to cinema and train times.
- Joakal 15y agoYou seem to have misunderstood the source of train information. It's a private company that's publicly funded. The Crown does appear to own the copyright.
- halo 15y agoMy point is that the article sidesteps a fundamental question about copyright of government works. If you believe that the correct way to maximise value is to use the data commercially to maximise revenue then you won't see a problem with the current situation. If you believe that the correct way to maximise value is to provide the data for free to end users then you'll think it's wrong. The article implies the latter is true without argument, and implies it's the norm in the UK.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deadbadger 15y agoMaximise the value for whom? The data is being monopolistically exploited by a private entity, for private profit. Where is the value for the taxpayer there? I think most people would agree that taxpayer value for public expenditure should be maximised, and were the money from the licences going directly into the public coffers then we could certainly have a discussion about whether taxpayer value is maximised by selling the data or giving it away for free. That, however, is not what is happening here. As so frequently happens in the UK, the data is publically funded, and the profits are privately realised.
- mseebach 15y agoThe government pays the train operating companies to operate trains, not to feed data to iPhone apps, just as they're not paid to sell crisps and sodas from a small cart. This creates value (otherwise there would be no profit to extract), so why not?
- deadbadger 15y agoThe government pays the train companies to run a transport service; departure times are an essential part of that, in a way that crisps quite plainly (or quite saltedly, ha ha ha* ) are not. I agree that large-scale API provision is added value, and I have no objection to a private company making a profit from that. What I object to is a private company being handed a monopoly on that private data, with no effective oversight being given to the terms under which they provide access to it. ATOC, by dint of the exclusive licence granted to them by Network Rail, have complete control of the market for this publically-funded data. They are adding value by serving it as a reliable API, certainly; however the price they are able to command has little relation to that value, because they have no competitors. * sorry
- antihero 15y agoBuy why should we have to pay to license data about our own trains that we pay for?
- antihero 15y agoWhy should we pay double? That's like buying a chocolate bar then having to buy each square again individually.