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

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

...a) The member doesn't understand what they entitled to and how.
b) The member "desires" to get updated standards, that are not referenced by laws, for free via the internet, despite not being entitled to them.

I am trying to help clear up a).

I don't have any more time for b).

I'm guessing you mean me as "the member"? I HAVE NOT ONCE ADVOCATED FOR ANY FREE ACCESS TO ANY STANDARD, UPDATED OR OTHERWISE, THAT IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO LAW. I do not believe I am entitled to them, don't believe anyone has to give them to me, have not EVER advocated that such should be the case.

You, sir, have called me names and now have impugned my character, essentially making me out to be a thief.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I’m sorry; I completely disagree that a legislative reference to a technical safety standard necessitates that standard be made “free” (meaning all tax payers have to cover the cost of the select few to have access to the standard without paying directly.)

The free part, is being told there is a standard one must comply with. If one chooses to proceed with the voluntary activity the standard covers, the user should pay, not all of society.

I think tax payers only pay if the "government" pays for the standard on behalf of the populous.


I don't see it that way. I agree that by agreeing to have a standard included in law, the standards body needs to waive copyright and any fees.


When a standard gets incorporated into law, nobody benefits more than the manufacturers who created the standard in the first place. So releasing the standard into the public domain doesn't compromise their cost recovery, it enhances it, I think significantly.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

When a standard gets incorporated into law, nobody benefits more than the manufacturers who created the standard in the first place. So releasing the standard into the public domain doesn't compromise their cost recovery, it enhances it, I think significantly.

This has been a wide-ranging discussion, at times referring to standards in several fields and SDO's large and small... but in the case of boating and ABYC in particular, there's little benefit to ABYC besides the little shot of credibility they get from the inclusion of a spec into law.

From briefly being a member of ABYC and having a full set of the specs, I can see the following benefits to the member companies (manufacturers and service providers) from being part of such self-regulating efforts:

• they proactively address safety issues before the government does it for them
• there's a sensible and practical set of standards to aim for when designing new boats and products, or performing services.

The ABYC doesn't certify or approve products, so government reference isn't creating some sort of product lock-in or endorsement.

[Kubcat]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Kubcat.

Thank you very much.

I have been lurking for a while.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I'm guessing you mean me as "the member"? I HAVE NOT ONCE ADVOCATED FOR ANY FREE ACCESS TO ANY STANDARD, UPDATED OR OTHERWISE, THAT IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO LAW. I do not believe I am entitled to them, don't believe anyone has to give them to me, have not EVER advocated that such should be the case.

You, sir, have called me names and now have impugned my character, essentially making me out to be a thief.

First I have not called you any name, not impugned you’re character.

Please clarify what your issue is, with respect to ABYC.

You have stated your opinion that the referenced standards “must” be readily accessible.

By your own posts, they are.

What is your issue then?

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

First I have not called you any name, not impugned you’re character.

Well I guess we have yet another point on which we will have to agree to disagree. In this thread you have quoted posts of mine and then characterized them (and me since you only quoted me) as:

...You'd be complaining...

...FFS stop the bloody whining already....

...All the whintching about the cost and flawed legal arguments about “free access” are oh so tiring....

Maybe you think it is polite and refined to say someone is "complaining, whining, and whinging (I think that's what you meant - you can correct me if I'm wrong on that one)" when they're trying to have a discussion. I think you were calling me names. You see it your way....

And then you put words in mouth that I have never said, nor expressed the thoughts in any way saying that I was trying to get something to which I was not entitled.

The member "desires" to get updated standards, that are not referenced by laws, for free via the internet, despite not being entitled to them.

Not once, in this thread or anywhere else have I expressed any "desire" to get updated standards for free, on the internet or anywhere else. With this your implication is that I am trying to "cheat" or "steal" from the ABYC and that impugns my character. Again, you see it your way....

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

So releasing the standard into the public domain doesn't compromise their cost recovery, it enhances it, I think significantly.

Please explain how a Stanards org. would profit from this.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Well I guess we have yet another point on which we will have to agree to disagree. In this thread you have quoted posts of mine and then characterized them (and me since you only quoted me) as:



Maybe you think it is polite and refined to say someone is "complaining, whining, and whinging (I think that's what you meant - you can correct me if I'm wrong on that one)" when they're trying to have a discussion. I think you were calling me names. You see it your way....

And then you put words in mouth that I have never said, nor expressed the thoughts in any way saying that I was trying to get something to which I was not entitled.



Not once, in this thread or anywhere else have I expressed any "desire" to get updated standards for free, on the internet or anywhere else. With this your implication is that I am trying to "cheat" or "steal" from the ABYC and that impugns my character. Again, you see it your way....

Declaring that the whining is becoming tiring is not name calling.

Indicating that someone appears to be trying to get something for nothing, when every indication is that is exactly what they are trying to do, is not calling them a thief.

So, you have made representation that ABYC has been involved is some kind of wrong doing (at least that is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.)

The CFR you indicated declares that one does not even have to consider the ABYC standards; that referring to them is an alternative should one choose. Don’t wanna pay (if that is the only option, but it isn't) don’t choose that alternative. That seems simple.

Notwithstanding, the standards are available at the office of public archives, (as has been in place for this purpose for how many years?) so are as “readily accessible” as they have ever been.

But most damming, by your own admission, you found the referenced standards on the internet.

So if your motives are not as we have been left to surmise, based on your posts, please clarify for once and for all, being as clear as you can possibly be, “What is your issue with ABYC in this matter?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Please explain how a Stanards org. would profit from this.

The members benefit because they get their preferred standards codified into law and then everyone has to buy their equipment to meet the code.

The ABYC is a non-profit so they can’t expect to profit in any event.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Declaring that the whining is becoming tiring is not name calling.

Indicating that someone appears to be trying to get something for nothing, when every indication is that is exactly what they are trying to do, is not calling them a thief.

So, you have made representation that ABYC has been involved is some kind of wrong doing (at least that is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.)

The CFR you indicated declares that one does not even have to consider the ABYC standards; that referring to them is an alternative should one choose. Don’t wanna pay (if that is the only option, but it isn't) don’t choose that alternative. That seems simple.

Notwithstanding, the standards are available at the office of public archives, (as has been in place for this purpose for how many years?) so are as “readily accessible” as they have ever been.

But most damming, by your own admission, you found the referenced standards on the internet.

So if your motives are not as we have been left to surmise, based on your posts, please clarify for once and for all, being as clear as you can possibly be, “What is your issue with ABYC in this matter?

Once again you are ruining a perfectly good topic. Stop when you are ahead. Please.

[Exile]

Or just stop. Or start a new thread. Or go somewhere else please. I think this may be the 3rd thread in just the past couple of weeks that I'm aware of. I'd like to keep thinking you just never understood what the thread topic actually was rather than believing you have been deliberately creating pointless conflict.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I HAVE NOT ONCE ADVOCATED FOR ANY FREE ACCESS TO ANY STANDARD, UPDATED OR OTHERWISE, THAT IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO LAW. I do not believe I am entitled to them, don't believe anyone has to give them to me, have not EVER advocated that such should be the.

Is someone else posting in your name?

If not, can you please explain how your post #286 does not directly contradict your claim above?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Is someone else posting in your name?

If not, can you please explain how your post #286 does not directly contradict your claim above?

Which post #286 are you reading? That post, along with countless others at this point, makes a clear distinction between standards NOT incorporated into law (paid for) and ones that are (arguably not paid for).

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

So, you have made representation that ABYC has been involved is some kind of wrong doing (at least that is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.)

I do think that hiding behind copyright law after having gotten your standard incorporated into law - especially for someone who claims to be concerned about my safety - is "detestable and reprehensible" - those were my words - in a post that I specifically labeled as a "rant" because it was. That does have connotations of moral "wrong doing" but not of legal "wrong doing" (the example in Cambridge is "His conduct, though morally reprehensible, is not a crime."). You can decide if that's what you meant by "wrong doing". I think it is morally wrong, regardless of law, to work to get your standard turned into law and then hide it - and yes, I do consider having to go to a reading room in Washington DC to be "hiding it".

I do not know of any "wrong doing", nor have I alluded to or implied any, from the legal perspective, from ABYC or any other SDO with regard to the development of their standards or their availability. AFAIK they have comported themselves entirely within the law. As noted above, I think the morality of the situation is different.

If an SDO wants to conduct themselves as a business and not be involved in law, well then I can just not do business with them, or take my business elsewhere if I don't like their product, corporate values, or the color of their logo. Again, AFAIK ABYC (see note below), unlike some other SDOs, doesn't have any mandatory (i.e. legally required with no alternative) standards with which I must comply and thus, in my mind, sits in a different category from entities such as UL, NFPA, and ICBO - entities that issue standards that are cast into law and become mandatory. Regardless, they all comply with the law as currently interpreted - our whole discussion here is about that interpretation and not about the standards themselves.

Do I wish ("desire") that SDOs would voluntarily waive the copyright on any standard that has been incorporated in law? Certainly. Do I expect them to do that? Not a bit, but maybe by having enough public discussions and trying to get the point to some of their members one or two might see the light.

------

On a separate but related topic within the broad subject, I do have some concerns about USCG procedure E2-23, 26 July 2017 MSC Guidelines for Electrical Plans - Small Passenger Vessels. The procedure lists a number of private standards including IEEE 45 and ABYC E-11 in the "References" section and then goes on to say:

The submitter shall provide sufficient documentation and plans to indicate compliance with the requirements outlined in references (a) through (j), as applicable to the particular vessel.

That sounds, to me, like a bit of an end run around the CFR by the USCG and a bit like ABYC E-11 is mandatory. On the one hand I applaud the USCG for taking the initiative to use updated standards because the law is woefully behind, and on the other hand it concerns me vis-a-vis all of the thoughts listed in this thread, with the additional concern that there is no standard of "reasonable availability" because the procedure is not part of the CFR.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

I do think that hiding behind copyright law after having gotten your standard incorporated into law - especially for someone who claims to be concerned about my safety - is "detestable and reprehensible" - those were my words - in a post that I specifically labeled as a "rant" because it was. That does have connotations of moral "wrong doing" but not of legal "wrong doing" (the example in Cambridge is "His conduct, though morally reprehensible, is not a crime."). You can decide if that's what you meant by "wrong doing". I think it is morally wrong, regardless of law, to work to get your standard turned into law and then hide it - and yes, I do consider having to go to a reading room in Washington DC to be "hiding it".

I do not know of any "wrong doing", nor have I alluded to or implied any, from the legal perspective, from ABYC or any other SDO with regard to the development of their standards or their availability. AFAIK they have comported themselves entirely within the law. As noted above, I think the morality of the situation is different.

If an SDO wants to conduct themselves as a business and not be involved in law, well then I can just not do business with them, or take my business elsewhere if I don't like their product, corporate values, or the color of their logo. Again, AFAIK ABYC (see note below), unlike some other SDOs, doesn't have any mandatory (i.e. legally required with no alternative) standards with which I must comply and thus, in my mind, sits in a different category from entities such as UL, NFPA, and ICBO - entities that issue standards that are cast into law and become mandatory. Regardless, they all comply with the law as currently interpreted - our whole discussion here is about that interpretation and not about the standards themselves.

Do I wish ("desire") that SDOs would voluntarily waive the copyright on any standard that has been incorporated in law? Certainly. Do I expect them to do that? Not a bit, but maybe by having enough public discussions and trying to get the point to some of their members one or two might see the light.

------

On a separate but related topic within the broad subject, I do have some concerns about USCG procedure E2-23, 26 July 2017 MSC Guidelines for Electrical Plans - Small Passenger Vessels. The procedure lists a number of private standards including IEEE 45 and ABYC E-11 in the "References" section and then goes on to say:



That sounds, to me, like a bit of an end run around the CFR by the USCG and bit like ABYC E-11 is mandatory. On the one hand I applaud the USCG for taking the initiative to use updated standards because the law is woefully behind, and on the other hand it concerns me vis-a-vis all of the thoughts listed in this thread, with the additional concern that there is no standard of "reasonable availability" because the procedure is not part of the CFR.

Well that’s still not very clear to me.

If I understand correctly, one issue you have with ABYC is that...

“The CFR that references E8 and E9, is only accessible via the public office of archives”.

Is my understanding correct?