4 ms·

Not specifically about DRM, but just their general attitude towards transparency and implementability. Making standards non-public (as in, for anyone to look at

Not specifically about DRM, but just their general attitude towards transparency and implementability. Making standards non-public (as in, for anyone to look at on the web for free) is a pretty anti-consumer thing to do, as is creating standards that include patented technology. The usefulness of standards for the consumer is interoperability. Both of those things actively prevent interoperability.

sohkamyung 9y ago
I see. Yes, making standards 'non-public' is an issue. In the past, I had to pay to obtain some standards documents as reference materials for products that I was working on. It would be much nicer if the standards were freely available, like those released by the IETF. However, the IEEE isn't the only guilty one including patented technology in their standards. I believe the MPEG-LA also does the same thing (the MP3 and H.264 standards).
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  No, it's shockingly common, actually ... but it's still shocking how an organization of supposedly engineers obviously is incapable of recognizing and addressing an obvious massive structural flaw in their supposed solution to the problem of interoperability.
- pdimitar 9y ago
  The fact that everyone does it doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Be the change.
ballenf 9y ago
I was looking for an ISO standard and could find no free (illegal or otherwise) source for the standard (found outdated editions, but no way to know details of changes in the latest version). Was kind of amazed how well they police that, given that it's just a few MBs of a PDF as compared a multi-gig movie. $230+ for the document. My search efforts were admittedly limited to google and duckduckgo. The particular standard was ISO 18004, after reading yesterday's article regarding reading a blurred QR code. Was basically looking to do a hobby project reinventing the wheel of making a QR code generator and then seeing what improvements to the standard might be possible and still compatible. Wanted to work from original source material, but wasn't looking to spend $200+ before even getting started. Found a 2006 (2015 is the latest) edition, so just going with it. It felt strange and a little wrong to have the official standard for QR codes be closed source. Until 2015 when Denso Wave's patents expired, you actually were only licensed to use their patents on the tech so long as you followed the official spec 100%. Interesting position to be in: either risk patent infringement or buy a spec to ensure compatibility. If my project gets anywhere, I'll happily spend the money on it. Was basically just annoying to hit that hurdle coming out of the gate. Some ISO specs are free, but only handful of the thousands in effect. And I'm not so idealistic to think that the ISO org itself can run on goodwill and attaboys, but there are known solutions with commercial vs. personal licenses. ------ Regarding the article at hand -- we absolutely need open access to standards in order to repair our devices. How can you repair or test an interface if you don't have access to the specs on how exactly it's supposed to work?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- userbinator 9y ago
  found outdated editions, but no way to know details of changes in the latest version In the particular case of 18004, the changes are probably not significant enough from the 2006 version to matter for your project.
mindcrime 9y ago
I'll just refer back to what I said about this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14583976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14583976

sohkamyung 9y ago

I see. Yes, making standards 'non-public' is an issue. In the past, I had to pay to obtain some standards documents as reference materials for products that I was working on. It would be much nicer if the standards were freely available, like those released by the IETF. However, the IEEE isn't the only guilty one including patented technology in their standards. I believe the MPEG-LA also does the same thing (the MP3 and H.264 standards).

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
No, it's shockingly common, actually ... but it's still shocking how an organization of supposedly engineers obviously is incapable of recognizing and addressing an obvious massive structural flaw in their supposed solution to the problem of interoperability.
pdimitar 9y ago
The fact that everyone does it doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Be the change.

ballenf 9y ago

I was looking for an ISO standard and could find no free (illegal or otherwise) source for the standard (found outdated editions, but no way to know details of changes in the latest version). Was kind of amazed how well they police that, given that it's just a few MBs of a PDF as compared a multi-gig movie. $230+ for the document. My search efforts were admittedly limited to google and duckduckgo. The particular standard was ISO 18004, after reading yesterday's article regarding reading a blurred QR code. Was basically looking to do a hobby project reinventing the wheel of making a QR code generator and then seeing what improvements to the standard might be possible and still compatible. Wanted to work from original source material, but wasn't looking to spend $200+ before even getting started. Found a 2006 (2015 is the latest) edition, so just going with it. It felt strange and a little wrong to have the official standard for QR codes be closed source. Until 2015 when Denso Wave's patents expired, you actually were only licensed to use their patents on the tech so long as you followed the official spec 100%. Interesting position to be in: either risk patent infringement or buy a spec to ensure compatibility. If my project gets anywhere, I'll happily spend the money on it. Was basically just annoying to hit that hurdle coming out of the gate. Some ISO specs are free, but only handful of the thousands in effect. And I'm not so idealistic to think that the ISO org itself can run on goodwill and attaboys, but there are known solutions with commercial vs. personal licenses. ------ Regarding the article at hand -- we absolutely need open access to standards in order to repair our devices. How can you repair or test an interface if you don't have access to the specs on how exactly it's supposed to work?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
userbinator 9y ago
found outdated editions, but no way to know details of changes in the latest version In the particular case of 18004, the changes are probably not significant enough from the 2006 version to matter for your project.

mindcrime 9y ago

I'll just refer back to what I said about this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14583976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14583976