4 ms·

I don't get how a standard behind a paywall is even considered a standard. Imagine you had to pay to find out what a meter is.

Arnt 5y ago
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0024QL8MC https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0024QL8MC ?
- thrdbndndn 5y ago
  Rekt
- croon 5y ago
  > The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. There, that's free. I understand yours is likely just a joke, but you're paying for the tool, not the definition.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    It was… a serious joke. GP: "Imagine you had to pay to find out what a meter is." I posted a link to a device that'll tell you whether something is a meter, or more, or less. Now, that wasn't what GP had in mind, but it matches the words. So what did GP have in mind? Perhaps something more like a definition? Wikipedia supplies that (and wants you to pay, there's a promiment banner at the top of the page). Britannica supplies a definition (and requires you to pay). Your school books supplied a definition (and the school paid for that, and for the teacher who made you read it, and more). ISO supplies that, and requires you to pay, like all the others. I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but having to pay isn't "imagine that", it's the normal case. In the case of ISO the readers pay around half the cost and the writers pay the other half. You can argue that the the costs should be split differently, but please not by saying "imagine that".
    - croon 5y ago
      In all your examples you are paying someone to print something. Wikipedia asks you to pay for hosting, staff and further development (if you want to). But no one has copyright on the definition of a metre. You are free to type it on a paper and give it to as many people as you'd like. That's what free means. Can I copy ISO standards freely?
      - Arnt 5y ago
        It is indeed true that in all of my examples, someone's paid to print something. Printing is part of the cost. In the case of Wikipedia, people sit in offices and print letters, for example its lawyers who respond every time someone sues the foundation. I don't believe that printing letters to the courts forms a major part of fighting those lawsuits, though. Britannica itself hasn't been published on paper for almost ten years now, but even when it was, printing was a small part of the cost. The editors cost much more. The school paid for the school books and the teachers, and again, the actual printing of the school books is a minor part. The teacher's salary is much, much more, and even the school book publisher's authors and editors are paid more than the printers. Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid.
        croon 5y ago
        You seem to be missing the point. Britannica or Wikipedia or any publisher of most facts/definitions/similar don't actually own those facts or definitions, you pay them for their work in packaging it and, I guess, phrasing. The definition of a metre, to circle back, is free, and yet people seem to still pay for it in various ways, by your own account. People can still be paid for work. Edit: Seen another way, if I paid someone specifically for the definition of a metre, anyone could produce a product for me, but in this case only ISO can (at least with current phrasing, layout, etc). I imagine the cost for the metre definition wouldn't be very high, and there would probably be accurate enough open information alternatives. We don't even have to imagine. Hopefully clarifies my OP. === Opinion section === Locking standards/laws/facts behind paywalls and copyrighting it breeds a society with even more inequality where the haves and have-nots have different access to basic information we all have to adher to. Standards are a type of information where if you have to adher to it it should be open to any to use as they need. > Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid. No cost is minor for everyone, especially not in aggregate with all other "small costs". But to clarify, the argument is regarding what we pay for, not my stance on how it should be (which might be too prominent).
thrdbndndn 5y ago
You do have to. The more accurate you want, the bigger money you have to pay too.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I mean the definition is public. "The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second." You don't go through a paywall to find the definition. Of course that definition might not be particularly convenient for someone who just wants to measure a meter accurately.
  - kuroguro 5y ago
    Yeah, that's what I meant. > that definition might not be particularly convenient The same way the standard for MPEG wouldn't be useful for someone who just wants to watch a video :)
erk__ 5y ago
The SI system is a interesting one because it is actually not just free, but released under a CC license. https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/
throw0101a 5y ago
> I don't get how a standard behind a paywall is even considered a standard. What makes something a standard is when people agree to use it and design against it. If no one uses it, even if it's openly available, is it really a (practical) standard? Things don't even have to be written down, they're simply "the way we do things": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure

Arnt 5y ago

https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0024QL8MC https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0024QL8MC ?

thrdbndndn 5y ago
Rekt
croon 5y ago
> The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second. There, that's free. I understand yours is likely just a joke, but you're paying for the tool, not the definition.
- Arnt 5y ago
  It was… a serious joke. GP: "Imagine you had to pay to find out what a meter is." I posted a link to a device that'll tell you whether something is a meter, or more, or less. Now, that wasn't what GP had in mind, but it matches the words. So what did GP have in mind? Perhaps something more like a definition? Wikipedia supplies that (and wants you to pay, there's a promiment banner at the top of the page). Britannica supplies a definition (and requires you to pay). Your school books supplied a definition (and the school paid for that, and for the teacher who made you read it, and more). ISO supplies that, and requires you to pay, like all the others. I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but having to pay isn't "imagine that", it's the normal case. In the case of ISO the readers pay around half the cost and the writers pay the other half. You can argue that the the costs should be split differently, but please not by saying "imagine that".
  - croon 5y ago
    In all your examples you are paying someone to print something. Wikipedia asks you to pay for hosting, staff and further development (if you want to). But no one has copyright on the definition of a metre. You are free to type it on a paper and give it to as many people as you'd like. That's what free means. Can I copy ISO standards freely?
    - Arnt 5y ago
      It is indeed true that in all of my examples, someone's paid to print something. Printing is part of the cost. In the case of Wikipedia, people sit in offices and print letters, for example its lawyers who respond every time someone sues the foundation. I don't believe that printing letters to the courts forms a major part of fighting those lawsuits, though. Britannica itself hasn't been published on paper for almost ten years now, but even when it was, printing was a small part of the cost. The editors cost much more. The school paid for the school books and the teachers, and again, the actual printing of the school books is a minor part. The teacher's salary is much, much more, and even the school book publisher's authors and editors are paid more than the printers. Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid.
      - croon 5y ago
        You seem to be missing the point. Britannica or Wikipedia or any publisher of most facts/definitions/similar don't actually own those facts or definitions, you pay them for their work in packaging it and, I guess, phrasing. The definition of a metre, to circle back, is free, and yet people seem to still pay for it in various ways, by your own account. People can still be paid for work. Edit: Seen another way, if I paid someone specifically for the definition of a metre, anyone could produce a product for me, but in this case only ISO can (at least with current phrasing, layout, etc). I imagine the cost for the metre definition wouldn't be very high, and there would probably be accurate enough open information alternatives. We don't even have to imagine. Hopefully clarifies my OP. === Opinion section === Locking standards/laws/facts behind paywalls and copyrighting it breeds a society with even more inequality where the haves and have-nots have different access to basic information we all have to adher to. Standards are a type of information where if you have to adher to it it should be open to any to use as they need. > Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid. No cost is minor for everyone, especially not in aggregate with all other "small costs". But to clarify, the argument is regarding what we pay for, not my stance on how it should be (which might be too prominent).

thrdbndndn 5y ago

You do have to. The more accurate you want, the bigger money you have to pay too.

foxfluff 5y ago
I mean the definition is public. "The metre is currently defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second." You don't go through a paywall to find the definition. Of course that definition might not be particularly convenient for someone who just wants to measure a meter accurately.
- kuroguro 5y ago
  Yeah, that's what I meant. > that definition might not be particularly convenient The same way the standard for MPEG wouldn't be useful for someone who just wants to watch a video :)

erk__ 5y ago

The SI system is a interesting one because it is actually not just free, but released under a CC license. https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/ https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/

throw0101a 5y ago

> I don't get how a standard behind a paywall is even considered a standard. What makes something a standard is when people agree to use it and design against it. If no one uses it, even if it's openly available, is it really a (practical) standard? Things don't even have to be written down, they're simply "the way we do things": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure