[Opengenalliance] old bailey proceedings

[Guy Etchells]

On 16/05/2011 11:53, Javier Ruiz wrote:
> Hi Guy
>
> besides the eloquent arguments by Ben, there is another point being missed.
>
> I completely agree with the very valid point you make about costs. All
> we are saying is that after costs have been recovered eventually records
> should end up in the public domain where they belong.

In a way they do as the commercial companies provide free access at the 
National Archives.
But we must remember that many of the records (the 1911 census for 
instance) is not in the Public Domain it is still subject to Crown 
Copyright.
>
> And it's not about bashing private companies at all, which after all
> only have a duty to their shareholders. Both The National Archives and
> the British Library are cashing in and restricting access on their
> online services, independently of the commercial deals.

The National Archives are bound by UK law to recover the costs of 
supplying the records.
They could not allow free online access without there being a change in 
the law.
>
> These UK cultural institutions see the Internet as a way
> to generate income, rather than an extension of their mission. The
> argument being that their core mandate only relates to the physical
> world. As I was told by one of the managers of the British Library, they
> are conceptualised as "buildings", and do not get proper funding for the
> digital revolution.

In some cases such as Civil Registers that is correct. The GRO is duty 
bound to only provide paper certificates on the specified forms under 
the hand or seal of the Registrar General.
>
> This is what we at ORG see as a fundamental UK policy failure: no public
> mandate for digital access, no funding and no linking to openness.
>
> France has just prepared a national fund of €4.2 Billion for Information
> Society, including a good chunk for cultural digitisation. This is not
> just a matter of crisis and cuts, but about public policy, and not
> necessarily partisan in UK.
>
> What we are saying is not that radical as you make it sound. It is
> fundamentally pretty much what is being recommended for years now in
> every European report and study on digitisation, culminating in the
> Committee of Sages:
>
> /- Cultural institutions should make public domain material digitised
> with public funding as widely available as possible for access and
> re-use. This cross-border access should be part of the funding
> conditions for digitisation across Europe. The use of intrusive
> watermarks or other means that limit the use of the material should be
> avoided./
> /
> /
> /- The European Commission should consider ways and means to eliminate
> the differences in the rights status of digitised material between the
> Member States in a context where cross-border access and use is the
> norm. In principle the mere digitisation process should not generate any
> new rights./
> /
> /
> /- In order to protect the interests of public institutions entering
> into a partnership with a private partner a set of minimum conditions
> should be respected:/
>
>     * /The contents of the agreement between a public cultural
>       institution and a private partner should be made public./
>     * /The digitised public domain material should be free of charge for
>       the general public and available in all EU Member States./
>     * /The private partner should provide cultural institutions with
>       digitised files of the same quality as the ones it uses itself./
>     * /The maximum time of preferential use of material digitised in
>       public-private partnerships must not exceed 7 years. This period
>       is considered adequate to generate, on one hand, incentives for
>       private investment in mass-digitisation of cultural assets, and,
>       on the other, to allow sufficient control of the public
>       institutions over their digitised material./
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/reflection_group/final-report-cdS3.pdf
>
> Current arrangements fail on most of the above: 10 year deals, no
> archival quality copies, paywalls and commercial confidentiality of
> contracts.
>
> Best, Javier
>

Unfortuately your assumptions are not correct.
Take the 1901 census the conditions imposed there stated the the 
National Archives would recieve royalties as soon as the costs were 
recovered.
The 1911 census was opened to other purchasers as soon as the full 
census was released online.
The public have free access to the 1911 at the National Archives.

Someone has to pay the costs for an online database why should it be the 
tax payer.
I would rather my taxes were employed on repairing roads or providing 
schools and hospitals than funding my hobby.

I agree Public Records should be free to view at the archive but see no 
need for the extra expense of providing public records in an individuals 
home.
Cheers
Guy

-- 
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells/ The site that gives you facts 
not promises
http://anguline.co.uk/ Old and rare books on CD