[8276] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: EDGAR and A-130
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (gwh@lurnix.com)
Fri Nov 12 16:33:41 1993
To: uunet!research.westlaw.com!shaynes@uunet.uu.net (Steve Haynes)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, gwh@lurnix.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 93 14:47:49 CST."
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 13:15:57 -0800
From: gwh@lurnix.com
Steve Haynes writes:
>"(a) Ensure that existing and planned information systems do not
>unnecessarily duplicate information systems available from other
>agencies or from the private sector;"
>
>The language speaks for itself. The intent of the EDGAR project
>was to permit -- even encourage -- a multitude of private sector
>points of dissemination of the EDGAR data. The NSF grant sweeps
>aside all prior decisions on the part of the SEC and on the part
>of Congress when the EDGAR program was initially funded. We
>haven't even let the marketplace work out the pricing for these
>materials. Jamie points to vendors' pricing of prior SEC-related
>materials because he cannot say what the EDGAR data would be
>priced at.
What we really have here is a collision of two cultures.
The Internet has classically had an "Information Socialism"
type of culture: if the information exists, it's a good thing
for it to be freely available. West and a number of other
companies are coming into dealing with the Internet from
an "Information Capitalism" point of view: they make their
money off providing information in a limited manner.
The NSF's actions more or less represent the will of its
user population, who are the older "Information Socialism"
crowd, the universities and those at corporations who have
the desire to spread information for free and get information
for free. As such, it's not at all in violation of A-130 from
their viewpoint; there is no other available free access to the
EDGAR information at this time.
Right now, some things are only available through I.C. sources.
Westlaw is a good example; they went into business to provide
the service of collecting and thence distributing for fee
court decisions. Some things are only available via free
information sources: the wealth of miscelaneous information
you find perusing around with Archie or WWW eludes short
descripton. And a few areas we may have an overlap between
free information and priced information.
Since the whole existing what's charged for and what's free
infrastructure evolved totally randomly, there is no overall
policy for what classes of information should be public domain
(freely distributable) and what should be handled on a usage
fee bases. Obviously the companies in the business of selling
information have some cause to complain if they lose business
because someone else provides the same data for free. But the
information they're providing in some way may well be something
which the public good demands be freely available.
Equally, what will the situation be when information that's
currently freely available starts being taken over by
commercial providers?
The basic issue of which information belongs in what category
really needs to be addressed at all levels.
-george william herbert
gwh@lurnix.com
