Should standards that become a part of a law be free to the public?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by thinwater

You exaggerate to create a straw man. You have not explained how providing a standard, not proprietary corporate information, would chill the economy. More likely the opposite. I believe your argument, as it relates to adopted by reference standards, is fabricated. Produce one concrete example, limited ONLY to adopted by reference standards. I feel certain this will be impossible, because the adopted portions are ALREADY, by LAW, available to your business competitors. How can you make a case that confidential business information has been revealed?

I think you will find the courts are slowly moving to make more standards public. Time will tell.


[By the way, I hold several patents, created much confidential process information, and write for a living. I respect IP very highly.]

It seems pretty clear to me that industry standards organizations like ABYC, SAE, IEEE, ANSI, ASTM, ITU, etc. would lose a large portion of their inherent value if they have to give away for free all their standards that are incorporated into law. For example, ASTM publications generated over $60M revenue in 2018 which is over 60% of its total revenue. Could ASTM even exist if all their standards database suddenly became public domain because they are incorporated into regulations? I doubt it.

[transmitterdan]

There is a comprehensive treatise on standards setting organizations (SDOs) here:

https://www.standardsportal.org/usa_...ds_system.aspx

Might be a good place to start research on how important SDOs are to almost all industries.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Exile

Of course you have, and just did it again.

I disagree with your assessment.

I have attempted to contribute useful information for those who may be interested.

We are talking about an independent standard with copyright protection, referenced by a law.

In my personal opinion, a law, (theoretical eg.)...

"Every recreational vessel LPG system shall comply with ABYC standard A-1 Marine Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Systems." should be accessible and free.

If the statement posted in red above is made available to the public, it meets the criteria of the law being accessible and free.

The referenced standard, does not have to be made free, or have the copyright infringed upon, for the law that references it, to be public, free, and enforceable.

In this simple theoretical example, any law abiding citizen can be aware of the existence of the law, and determine if it applies to them, or if they have to do anything to abide by it.

If they determine it applies to them, (they are planning to add an LPG system to a rec vessel that doesn't have one, or they are planning to modify an existing rec vessel LPG system) then all they have to do is ensure the work is done in compliance with the referenced standard to continue to be law abiding.

As mentioned in a prior "on topic" post, there are many ways to do this.

Yes, regardless which option they choose, it will cost them, one way or another. It should. It is their boat, their choice.

It should not cost the people down the street, who are struggling to make ends meet, and who have no intention of ever purchasing a boat, let alone modifying the LPG system on one.

Please note that this is only my opinion.

However, despite my request for anyone to cite any law that states otherwise; nobody has been able to.

So perhaps rather than chastise me personally, you could be useful, and simply advise the corresponding citation if you know it, or apply your efforts to find it.

[Dsanduril]

There's nothing that says those standards bodies have to offer their standards for use in law - that's just part of the business practice of many SDOs.

There are options. For instance ASME charges for allowing companies to apply a stamp to pressure vessels and boilers that shows they were built in accordance with the standard. The text of the standard could be free (it isn't but should be since it is incorporated in law in many places) and yet ASME still has a revenue stream when someone makes use of the standard.

Much harder for the ABYC (or anyone else) in the DIY market, but how much of their market is DIY? ABYC could easily charge manufacturers for using/advertising their name while allowing those standards adopted into law to be open so that they can be reviewed, critiqued, studied, or whatever by the citizens who are ultimately responsible for the law (after all, in the U.S. the law is ostensibly created and enforced in my name).

[transmitterdan]

The business model of SDOs is up to each SDO. And SDOs are not different under the law than private enterprises or public companies. A copyright or patent is the same no matter what type entity owns the rights to it. So I see little chance the courts will rip away all IP rights just because some SDO IP ended up in a regulation that has the force of law.

As much as I want the aforementioned to be wrong I don’t see how the courts can thread the needle without throwing the whole standards ecosystem out of balance.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The business model of SDOs is up to each SDO. And SDOs are not different under the law than private enterprises or public companies. A copyright or patent is the same no matter what type entity owns the rights to it. So I see little chance the courts will rip away all IP rights just because some SDO IP ended up in a regulation that has the force of law.

As much as I want the aforementioned to be wrong I don’t see how the courts can thread the needle without throwing the whole standards ecosystem out of balance.

Read the Law. A standard cannot be adopted by reference UNLESS the SDO offers it. No ripping involved. I posted this code above.


I respect IP. This is different. They offer it up because they WANT it to be a part of public law, and hence (whether they admit this or not) public domain. You can't have it both ways. You can either have your cake or you can eat it.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Read the Law. A standard cannot be adopted by reference UNLESS the SDO offers it. No ripping involved. I posted this code above.


I respect IP. This is different. They offer it up because they WANT it to be a part of public law, and hence (whether they admit this or not) public domain. You can't have it both ways. You can either have your cake or you can eat it.

This is an opinion I think will not be shared by the courts. As you say, a significant reason the SDOs or companies offer up their IP to be standardized is to perpetuate their economic existence. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with that.

Companies participate in SDOs for various reasons. But a big reason is that when an SDO promulgates a standard that has been reviewed by industry experts the company gains some legal distance in liability cases. Other reasons are equally capitalistic such as reducing research and development costs by designing to a common standard. If SDOs cannot get their IP into government approved standards their value to companies will be nearly nil.

Even in liberal Europe the ITU specifications are not free. ETSI is for the most part but others are not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Read the Law. A standard cannot be adopted by reference UNLESS the SDO offers it. No ripping involved. I posted this code above.

I respect IP. This is different. They offer it up because they WANT it to be a part of public law, and hence (whether they admit this or not) public domain. You can't have it both ways. You can either have your cake or you can eat it.

They want wide acceptance, but I don't think SDOs are going door to door peddling their standards to government, nor do I think they receive any significant benefit (other than recognition) from having a standard referenced in law.


It's more a case of regulators finding that a given standard is both suitable to the desired goal of a law, and has been widely adopted already.

[transmitterdan]

LE,

The world is not as altruistic as you believe my friend.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...t-organization

Yes, there is often a quid pro quo when dealing with the government. A big one in this case.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

* * *

So perhaps rather than chastise me personally, you could be useful, and simply advise the corresponding citation if you know it, or apply your efforts to find it.

I don't know it, nor do I have a dog in the fight. I thought one criteria a court might find useful would be to distinguish amongst different categories of those directly affected (or not) by the standard that's been adopted into law. But as thinwater has pointed out, recreational boatowners have certainly been impacted by ABYC standards even though they are not directly enforceable against them. There are competing private & public interests in play here, and I don't know all the various factors to reach any sort of informed opinion.

As for the practicalities involved, someone commented above -- probably quite correctly -- that there are probably no more than 1 in 10 DIY'ers who consult ABYC directly yet still manage to keep their boats seaworthy, functional & safe. As Lake-Effect has pointed out repeatedly, best practices under the ABYC can generally be met by accessing well-known resources like Calder, Casey, and others, along with websites created by experts like MaineSail. I have also received excellent advice from a number of frequent participants here on CF who are obviously credible, and also learned from marine techs and surveyors. When there's a critical system involved and I feel I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable or qualified to deal with it, I call an expert who is.

I'm sure you see a lot of suspect DIY work in your line of work, but also believe you are exaggerating the difficulty of meeting standards for reasonably adept, conscientious DIY boatowners. At least on most of our small to medium sized recreational vessels, most of it is not exactly rocket science. Maybe physically for some, but not conceptually.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

LE,

The world is not as altruistic as you believe my friend.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...t-organization

Yes, there is often a quid pro quo when dealing with the government. A big one in this case.

I understand what you're saying, but kinda wish you hadn't used that particular choice of terminology around L-E. At least not these days.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

They want wide acceptance, but I don't think SDOs are going door to door peddling their standards to government, nor do I think they receive any significant benefit (other than recognition) from having a standard referenced in law.

It's more a case of regulators finding that a given standard is both suitable to the desired goal of a law, and has been widely adopted already.

Not true. In a past life I was often the one doing the peddling. We had written standards we very much wanted used. But it is not the SDO doing the peddling, it is the member companies and their trade associations. Oh yes.


And there is nothing so wrong with this. Often the government makes changes. It's all part of the process.



Commonly, the government is spoon-fed the standards by the regulated community. Yup. Been there, done that.

[transmitterdan]

Interestingly there is a related debate surrounding research papers:


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nded-research/

[GordMay]

"Trump could mandate free access to federally funded research papers."

Federally funded research may not be very analogous to privately funded research and standards formulation.

[Shaneesprit]

There is a difference between laws and standards, but if you don’t comply with Standards you are in fact breaking the law.
and if there is no standard applying to something you have done / made, the first question that is asked is which is the closest standard that could of been applied and how have you mitigated any parts of that where you do not comply. ( in the event of an accident)
I agree standards should be easier to access, I come across things that are sub standard in my work and have to tell people that, but it would be far easier with the relevant documents to hand. I work ( inspect ) across a huge range of installed equipment,