Fee or free?

Abstract

Reviews the arguments for and against charging for access to information gathered at taxpayers' expense. Compares and contrasts policy and practice in the United States and the European Union, suggesting that their different historical and geopolitical backgrounds render such comparisons misleading. Suggests that the principle that public sector information should normally be free ignores the cost implications to the taxpayer resulting from commercial revenue lost by public sector bodies that currently exploit their own information for gain. Also suggests that the resulting loss of public sector employment would not immediately be taken up by the private sector. Using case studies, concludes that if society at large is the principal beneficiary of the information, then the taxpayer should pay, whereas if only a relatively small number of organizations benefits then they should pay. Suggests that, either way, the solution should be in the public interest.