Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Incorporation by Reference. . . Standards Behind a Pay Wall 7

Status
Not open for further replies.

SandCounter

Mechanical
Apr 24, 2006
253
I recently came across a website that has collected and offers for free a large database of standards documents in *.pdf form. Money is usually charged for much of this material when obtained from the source, e.g. ASTM, etc. The website's justification is that the material is incorporated by reference in law and if ignorance of the law is truly no excuse, then people under that law should have free access to know what governs them.

Aside from the question of the ethics of posting for free someone else's work (notice I'm not posting the link), what are your views on engineering standards that are incorporated by law but require payment to view?

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

I also can see both sides on this one. I agree with the notion that laws - and as an extension, standards that are referenced by laws - should be available to the public. It would be absurd for any government to pass a law and then not let the public see it. Why should that not extend to standards that said government adopts as law?

The flip side is - I think having private entities handle these standards is vastly more efficient, and it leaves the rules in the hands of people who actually know something about the industry. Perhaps it is different in other countries, but if the U.S. government were to "absorb" an organization like ASME (my most commonly used standard), it would suddenly take three times more people to run it. There would probably be three to four layers of mid-level managers getting a share of the tax payer money, and the person at the top would not be an engineer. He/she would be some higher-level bureaucrat's friend. He/she would be political and subject to the whims of the current administration. He/she could potentially be replaced every four to eight years, and the code could see major changes influenced by politics. Lobbyists from interest groups may see the code as an opportunity to unduly help or hurt industry.

The current system may not be perfect, but someone is going to pay for the development and maintenance of these standards no matter what. It might as well be the industry that pays and engineers that get payed, rather than tax payers and bureaucrats, respectively. At least it is a level playing field.
 
Many ASME standards started out as ANSI (i.e. govt) standards.

Were they grossly less efficient at that time and the other concerns you have back then?

Posting guidelines faq731-376 (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484
 
I recall when MIL standard changes were released, and you could/would just get a copy of the relevant changes so you could slip-sheet or redline your own copy of the parent standard. I'd grouse a lot less if ASTM standard changes were handled similarly, i.e. you could buy the "update" for a given standard for say, $5, or buy the whole thing at the regular $50 cost.

But then, their funding would drop by 90% and they wouldn't be able to update/change the standards at anything like the current frequency.

Um, and that's a bad thing...right? Hmmm.
 
Not the case! There have been rulings by the courts on this issue. Even a state's building code is not free for each individual, although there must be availability of the code to all for no fee. This has been solved by the powers that be, by having a hard copy and electronic availability of the codes to anyone who wants to look, you just can't print it out for your use or distribution unless you buy it. Go to the ICC website....the codes are available to view, but not to print unless you buy them.

It has also been ruled that the standards produced by various organizations are the copyright property of those organizations (ASTM, ACI, ANSI, etc.)and even though they are incorporated by reference in the codes, there is no requirement that those referenced documents be provided to individuals at no cost. Those don't even have to be available to the public for viewing.

Buying codes and standards that are relevant to your practice is a normal cost of doing business. You don't have to buy each version, each year, since most code referenced standards lag far behind the latest version. As an example, up until 2010 in the Florida Building Code, the standards referenced in the code for stucco were over 10 years old. Many other referenced standards are the same.
 
Ron said:
There have been rulings by the courts on this issue.
Ron said:
It has also been ruled that the standards produced by various organizations are the copyright property of those organizations (ASTM, ACI, ANSI, etc.)and even though they are incorporated by reference in the codes, there is no requirement that those referenced documents be provided to individuals at no cost. Those don't even have to be available to the public for viewing.

I double checked as it's been a while since I looked but the court case involving the website referenced in the original post is still ongoing. So, I'd say that it's not correct to say that this has been specifically ruled upon yet.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
 
From the UK side of the pond, I sometimes look at a clients specification and see the list of standards they require the contractor to comply with, and wonder how the smaller contractors fund this. Over here the British Standards Institute charges between $100 and $500 for a standard, (less if you are a member, and pay an annual fee.)

Also if a standard is released in multiple parts, then each part is charged!

As an example BS ISO 8528 for generating sets currently has 13 parts! These are constantly bring updated, so each part will only be current for less than ten years.

Another trip point for the unwary lies in BS ISO 3046 for engines, again released in several parts, purchase of BS ISO 3046-1 Declaration of power, leads you to realize that the definitions are in BS ISO 15550 which holds the central list of definitions for different types of engines.

So there you are, like I did a few years ago, persuading a very reluctant business owner to purchase a standard for several hundred dollars, then having to go back for more money, so I could understand what the first standard said!

On the other hand I now sit (as a papers member) on several BSI committees and see at first hand just how much work is put into the developing and updating standards (we do not have a real equivalent to your USA "codes"). Someone has to fund this. Now some of BSI's funds come from our government, equally in the European Union, they partially fund CENELEC and some other European standards bodies

What I think would be unwise, would be for government to fully fund standards bodies, as a means, for example of helping smaller companies. This would start driving standards in a way business users would like..........

So we seem to have a system which favors larger companies over smaller ones.

Anybody got a solution to this, especially for a start up company?

Purchase of standards is possibly tax deductible, but you have to earn money to pay taxes!


 
Hoxton said:
I sometimes look at a clients specification and see the list of standards they require the contractor to comply with, and wonder how the smaller contractors fund this.

I'd put money on them just having an old copy or no copy at all.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
 
IME - small businesses either skate by with 1) no copy, and hope they can find relevant excerpts online, 2) a copy they "kept" from their previous employer, or 3) piracy.
 
The link appears to be missing the apostrophe and l:
Unfortunately, the 5th circuit presumably only covers Louisiana and Texas. So, presumably, someone will need to violate copyright, get sued, and litigate on that decision, although there may be other arguments to be made, such as restraint of trade.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Thanks for the fixed link. Section 4 of the wiki article mentions other cases from other circuits.
 
"I notice a lot of chemical, aerospace, and mechanical engineers commenting here. I'm curious how much each of you (or your companies) would have to spend for a full code change of your engineering references?"

That is highly dependent on exactly what it is you're doing. Generally, I'm using API-650, AWWA D100, ASCE 7, various ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, NFPA 22, IBC. And yes, it adds up.
 
TME....the case you reference is not the only similar case to be put to a legal test. In the case of Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. the first court (Texas) ruled in summary judgment that SBCCI had a copyright to its material, even though the Standard Building Code had been locally adopted into ordinance, and that copying and distributing the information without permission was illegal and the court required Veeck to "sease and desist". Veeck appealed but the US District Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, upheld the ruling of the lower court.

The basic premise is that as long as the public is not prevented access to the code in some manner, the copyright holds. As previously noted, if you want to read essentially any code, you can do so, but if you print it or copy it without permission of its promulgating entity, you are violating copyright laws.

IRstuff referenced the same case and he is correct that the decision had limited influence except within the court's jurisdiction; however, such cases are usually cited as having set a precedence which is commonly respected by other courts in their decisions, provided the facts are similar.
 
FYI,the website in question is still fighting a lawsuit filed jointly by ASTM, ASHRAE, and NFPA in 2013.
 
According to the wiki article, the decision of the lower court was reversed, not upheld at 5th district.

"for whatever use the citizens choose to make of it. Citizens may reproduce copies of the law for many purposes, not only to guide their actions but to influence future legislation, educate their neighborhood association, or simply to amuse."
 
I would agree the prices or exorbitant, but I disagree that I don't have free access (even without this website). There is absolutely nothing stopping me or anyone else from hopping in the car, driving to a library, and reading as much as I like. For the more common codes, I probably don't even have to go that far. There's an International Building Code at the reference desk of the public library a block from where I type this. If I were to drive to my local public university engineering library I could probably read every ASTM, ACI, AISC, etc. If I were to drive a couple hours to my state's flagship public university engineering library, I could probably read every ASTM, ACI, ASIC, etc. ever written.

Now if I don't want to go to the library every time, I can pay for the convenience. I can pay to make copies at the library. Or I can go to these organizations and pay to have a hard copy or access on my desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, smart watch, whatever.

As a citizen and engineer I'd prefer that this is all digitized and offered for free to level the playing field and give everyone easy access to the standards they're required to follow. Of course if I do that, I probably need to shoulder a lot more of the cost of development since I'm undercutting some of the revenue that would go to that. I'd guess most of the population doesn't agree with me (and even the ones who do probably don't want to pay for it), so I don't anticipate that happening any time soon. Guess I'm stuck paying or going to the library.
 
At a point, the inconvenience and exclusivity of usage kind of makes the "freely available" only /technically/ accurate and still oppressively difficult to convince me of the fairness of availability.

I'm reminded of Arthur Dent...
HHGttG said:
Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
Arthur: With a torch.
Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur: So had the stairs.
Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.

"But they /were/ on display"
 
The US District Court in DC ruled against the website the OP mentions on 2 February 2017. It's subject to appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor