[HN Gopher] EU Advocate General: Technical Standards must be fre... ___________________________________________________________________ EU Advocate General: Technical Standards must be freely available without charge Author : layer8 Score : 306 points Date : 2023-06-23 16:06 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (curia.europa.eu) (TXT) w3m dump (curia.europa.eu) | javajosh wrote: | It's so strange when a government agency seems to actually | advocate for people rather than for special interests. | negative_zero wrote: | FYI for all: the cheapest source of standards available in | English (that I have found) is the Estonian Centre for | Standardisation and Accreditation: https://www.evs.ee/en | | Prices are generally single to low double-digit Euros (even for | standards that are hundreds or 1000+ dollars). | | If you are a solo contractor like me (and hence only need one | copy), DON'T get the single licence copies. You need to use some | BS DRM software that binds the file to your computer and is a | PITA. | | Get the organisation one, pay for two licenses, and you'll be | given a regular PDF instead (and still save hundreds of dollars). | | You obviously will only get the Estonian specific annexes, but | those are normally optional anyway, and generally available for | free when downloading the "free sample" of a standard for a | specific country. | miga wrote: | The standards are often referred to by the law and public | institutions. | | This means that they become de facto law, even if they do not | adhere to fundamental principles of the law: transparency, and | fairness. | | Standard paywalls thus should be seen as a barrier for the rule | of law, not just barrier for innovation. | | The prices for access to standards made sense in the era, when | every document had to be printed instead of downloading as PDF. | olieidel wrote: | This is very interesting. One data point for this are the | standards for medical device compliance (e.g. for medical | software). You can buy them from different institutions, the | content is the same, but the price varies from anywhere between | 30EUR to 500EUR. Yep, for a PDF file. It's an unholy mess and | literally every person I've encountered in the system, even | auditors, think that it's ridiculous. | | The PDF-selling companies argue that they need that money to | organize committee meetings for developing further versions of | standards etc., but that leaves me wondering - we have so many | other standards-setting institutions which don't rely on shady | PDF sales, so why not take that model instead? | | [1] https://openregulatory.com/accessing-standards/ (Disclaimer: | My company) | jtwaleson wrote: | Don't forget the mandatory mention of evs.ee where you can buy | standards way cheaper thanks to the Estonian government. | jaybeavers wrote: | Thank you from someone begrudgingly paying thousands of Euros | for IEC medical device standards pdfs!!!! | immibis wrote: | Most standards organizations have SOME way of making money, | because we live in capitalism. Some of them take hefty fees for | membership; some of them take hefty fees for compliance | certification; some of them take hefty fees to use their | trademarks (as in putting the USB logo next to the USB port); | and some of them take hefty fees to see the standards. | robomartin wrote: | > because we live in capitalism | | No. Because it costs money to run these organizations. They | are either funded by the government (which means taxes, which | means us), membership fees or other activities. Last I | checked everyone needs to feed themselves or their family. | This "it's because it's capitalism" thing gets old pretty | quickly. | | What should be objectionable is precisely when organizations | are government (taxes, us) funded and they sell us standards | you are supposed to work and test against for, well, | government-mandated certification requirements. So...we pay | for their work through taxation...for them to sell us the | products they create...and then we pay for the testing | services against documents we cannot freely access even | though we paid for their development. That's just messed-up. | | This is where it gets complicated. If USA or European | taxpayers fund the development of these standards, should | others outside of those regions have to pay or contribute in | any way? China is no-longer a poor agrarian society. And yet | they benefit from work done in the EU and USA for decades at | great cost to taxpayers. | | Not sure what the answer to this is other than to point out | these things are not simple. There's the "well, it benefits | everyone" angle, which brings us back to "Why are these | organizations charging for PDF's at all?". | themitigating wrote: | :No. Because it costs money to run these organizations. | They are either funded by the government (which means | taxes, which means us), membership fees or other | activities. Last I checked everyone needs to feed | themselves or their family. This "it's because it's | capitalism" thing gets old pretty quickly. | | What's the difference? What you described is capitalism. | tialaramex wrote: | It's true that this costs money, but it doesn't cost _that_ | much money. | | The EU or US _could_ just decide to pay for it. I would guess | that this is politically easier to swallow in Europe even | though it makes as much if not more sense economically in the | US. | anotherhue wrote: | Secret laws are generally considered bad. | | It's going to be for something dumb like the exact dimensions of | a fire safety tag, but if you don't tell me the law then it's a | secret law. | miga wrote: | I think "bad" is understatement: the secrecy of the law | undermines the principle of transparency that makes law work. | layer8 wrote: | The standards are not secret, they are merely behind a paywall. | The assumption has always been that the companies who have to | (or want to) implement those standards can afford the expense. | However, one point addressed by the Advocate General's present | Opinion is that it should be possible for citizens to check | whether the relevant standards are being obeyed, which means | that _citizens_ need to have access to those standards, not | just the entities implementing the standards. In addition, an | important part of the current court case is about whether | copyright (the basis on which fees are charged) can apply to | standards that are effectively part of the law. | amelius wrote: | I always wondered why they weren't for technical _safety_ | standards. | | By the way, there should be a special place in hell for the | people who designed this EU standards website: | | https://standards.cencenelec.eu | | You can search for standards, then you can pay for them in a | webshop, but you can't link to the main page for each standard as | there is some kind of URL-cookie mechanism that works hand-in- | hand with state on the server that will break down as soon as you | start using the URLs elsewhere. | diogocp wrote: | The submission title is misleading. This is an opinion of an | Advocate General, not a decision of the court. | | > The Advocate General's Opinion is not binding on the Court of | Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to | the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the | cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are | now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be | given at a later date. | layer8 wrote: | I now updated the title. It's not a decision of the Court, but | the Advocates General are part of the Court, along with the | judges, and their opinion is followed in most cases. | SNosTrAnDbLe wrote: | I realized this once when I went down the rabbit hole of SQL | standards. | | ISO SQL standard - 187 CHF | https://www.iso.org/standard/76583.html | | ANSI SQL standard - 237 USD for non members | https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/iso/isoiec90752016 | _a_a_a_ wrote: | Yeah, sux to not have the SQL standard. Flipside, allegedly it | is nearly undecipherable (on hearsay, not IME) | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | > Flipside, allegedly it is nearly undecipherable | | It's readable - though obviously you're going to need | experience in RDBMS theory (Codd's paper, etc) to grok it. | | It is _very_ verbose, though. | | Fortunately, the only people who need the ISO SQL spec are | the vendors: the people writing SQL engines and tooling: it's | next-to-useless for people who are designing databases or | writing queries against them, chiefly because no RDBMS | implementation, ever, has come close to implementing the full | specification, and everyone has their own extensions to SQL - | so all the vendors put out their own documentation and the | world's largely been happy with that for the past ~40 years | that SQL's been relevant. | | It's not too hard to find the standards in PDF form if you | know where to look - and as someone who does a fair bit of | SQL, I'll say I've only ever referred to the standards to | back-up my more controversial posts on StackOverflow. | _a_a_a_ wrote: | I'm heading in the direction which is engines/tooling and | I'm amazed at the number of corners of SQL that I have | discovered that I don't know properly. You can use it fine | for decades but when you need to know _precisely_ what is | acceptable to the GROUP BY /HAVING clauseS... then you | suddenly realise you don't. It's quite surprising. | | it would be useful to have that standard. Thanks, will have | a hunt. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | Are you at-least familiar with the concept of relational- | division? | _a_a_a_ wrote: | Very. Why? | mozman wrote: | People want to get paid for their work, and we need rigorous | authors and vetting. Who will pay? | codedokode wrote: | Should we make ordinary laws also paid? The lawyers earn | ridiculous profits so it is only fair that they share some of | it with law authors. | dotnet00 wrote: | I've always been a fan of the model followed by Khronos for | their graphics standards. The documentation is open to | everyone, while companies pay for participation and compliance | certification. | explaininjs wrote: | Commercial enterprises could pay a licensing/verification fee | that gets split between the spec authors and third party | verifiers. | | After all, isn't the entire value of a spec in the verification | that it is correctly implemented? | layer8 wrote: | The Opinion argues that those affected by the standards, for | example citizens buying products subject to the standards, | should be able to know what those standards are, and at least | in principle be enabled to verify if the standards are met. | Requiring third-party verifiers would be a way to deny | ordinary citizens free access to the standards. | dwheeler wrote: | The people who will pay will be the same people who currently | pay.The authors of standards are usually not paid by the | standards bodies and get no royalties. They and their companies | even have to pay for the travel required. The technical | reviewers are also often not paid by the standards bodies. | | The purpose of the current system is to defray the costs of the | printing press, since there was no other way to disseminate | information 100 years ago. Now that we have the Internet, | paying for individual standards is unjustifiable and should be | ended. This is made worse because of the increasing number of | standards that effect anything useful. Countless problems have | happened because people cannot affordably access the hundreds | of standards they are supposed to be using. | diego_sandoval wrote: | Yes, but the lawmakers are the ones that should abstain from | referencing closed standards in the law, not the standard the one | that has to open itself because the law references it. | | Or maybe the law could create its own official standard that | simply paraphrases what the closed standard says, effectively | making it open. | csense wrote: | I figure this should be a straightforward case of eminent | domain. | | Say you own a house. The government needs to take your house to | demolish it to build a road. The government is within its | rights to just _take_ it (after due process and fair payment). | | Now say you own a document that you make people pay to read. | The government needs to take your document to make it part of | the law to build a building code. Why doesn't the government | exercise same kind of rights to just _take_ it (after due | process and fair payment)? | jstanley wrote: | > The government needs to take your document to make it part | of the law to build a building code. | | This part doesn't follow. | | Why doesn't the government make their own document? Eminent | domain exists for land because it's not possible to make more | land in the same place. | immibis wrote: | Historically, the government doesn't pay fairly. The market | value of a house that's in the way of a highway is *very | low*. | rat9988 wrote: | Because nobody will make the effort afterwards to make good | standards. Fair payment is in most countries quiet unfair in | fact. | layer8 wrote: | The first option would mean that the law couldn't, for example, | mandate the use of ISO time formats. | | The second option would mean they would still get sued by the | copyright holders of the closed standards, paraphrase or not. | | The better option is probably for the government to re-publish | the standards as-is, with some compensation for the copyright | holders. | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | The government could give itself immunity from such lawsuits. | But agreed, there should be a set compensation for use of | standards in law which in doing so makes them openly and | freely available. Unless the copyright holder is Elsevier, in | that case they get nothing - screw you Elsevier. | johannes1234321 wrote: | On most cases law doesn't cite a specific standard however | refers to the "state of the art" which then is commonly | interpreted as "as defined in a standard" It is possible (but | often impractical) to prove to be "state the art" without | following a standard. | | Purpose is that the government doesn't have to rule all | details, but can leave that to domain experts and ongoing | research. | gerdesj wrote: | ISO 9000 + 14000 + 21000 (Quality, Enviro, IS Security) cost a | bloody fortune for a small business and they get updated every | few years. That lot is nearly compulsory in some markets. | | You still have to shell out for at least a day per standard per | year for auditing but it would be nice if the standards | themselves were free. Every little helps as Mr Tesco is fond of | saying. | | (EDIT - speling) | CrimsonCape wrote: | It's time for a ruling like this to apply to construction related | codes. You need code books such as IBC, IRC, IECC, NFPA, ANSI in | multiple year editions (depending on jurisdiction) and then whole | new batches of books when jurisdictions adopt new codes. | | Then, the IBC allows you to claim fire ratings if you match an | Underwriter's Laboratory tested assembly (for example, a fire- | rated wall) which buying PDFs from UL is another additional | expense. | | Point being, there's a rabbit hole of paywalled technical | standards in construction. | wolverine876 wrote: | [PDF] | soulbadguy wrote: | of course they should be. The fact there aren't currently, and we | need to even discuss it is so strange. I am happy that EU exists | and is forcing some sanity in the tech world. | westurner wrote: | IIUC this means that EU government standards must be public | domain? Or, preexisting paywalled / committee_attendance_required | standards are now conveniently by decree public domain? | | What are some good examples of Open Standards and Open Web | Standards for EU and other world regions? | layer8 wrote: | ETSI standards, for example, are already freely available. But | if they reference and normatively rely on ISO standards, it | might mean that the EU will have to somehow arrange for those | ISO standards to be made freely available as well. | CodesInChaos wrote: | Public domain content is available without any copyright | restrictions. While making it available under restrictive | rules/licenses could be enough to achieve the "no secret laws" | requirement. | tgv wrote: | Public domain (in its normal interpretation) might even have | adverse effects. It would allow sites/books to publish the | standards with (un)intentional errors. Copying them as is | should be free though, IMO. | peoplearepeople wrote: | Free redistribution without modification, is likely a better | model ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-23 23:00 UTC)