4 ms·

> 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

by 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).
      - Arnt 5y ago
        I'm not missing it, I think it's unimportant. It's a small portion of the cost, why argue about it instead of the large parts? ISO needs to pay its costs. The licensing it has chosen delivers about 50% of the necessary income. The copying is cheap, that's true, but ISO needs to pay all of its costs, not just the copying.
        croon 5y ago
        That you dismiss the distinction out of opinion on its' importance proves you indeed missed it. Whether or not ISO needs to be paid for the work it does or not is irrelevant to the discussion on whether their standards are free (they're not) and the definition of a metre is (it is). Opinion: If governments use them for eg regulation, maybe they should be funded by governments and be a non-profit.
  - anilakar 5y ago
    Purely technical drawings and textual descriptions are not considered works here, unless you e.g wrap it in a poem. And regardless of the copyright status, actual information content itself can't be copyrighted so standards could at least in theory rewritten as a crowsourced effort.
    - lupire 5y ago
      I don't believe that's true. What's true is that simple facts are not copyrightable, but compilations are. https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
- Someone 5y ago
  > 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. IMO, it doesn’t. OP asked for what a meter is, not for what object is a meter. The latter has an implied “long” or “in size”.

by croon 5y ago

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).
    - Arnt 5y ago
      I'm not missing it, I think it's unimportant. It's a small portion of the cost, why argue about it instead of the large parts? ISO needs to pay its costs. The licensing it has chosen delivers about 50% of the necessary income. The copying is cheap, that's true, but ISO needs to pay all of its costs, not just the copying.
      - croon 5y ago
        That you dismiss the distinction out of opinion on its' importance proves you indeed missed it. Whether or not ISO needs to be paid for the work it does or not is irrelevant to the discussion on whether their standards are free (they're not) and the definition of a metre is (it is). Opinion: If governments use them for eg regulation, maybe they should be funded by governments and be a non-profit.
- anilakar 5y ago
  Purely technical drawings and textual descriptions are not considered works here, unless you e.g wrap it in a poem. And regardless of the copyright status, actual information content itself can't be copyrighted so standards could at least in theory rewritten as a crowsourced effort.
  - lupire 5y ago
    I don't believe that's true. What's true is that simple facts are not copyrightable, but compilations are. https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
Someone 5y ago
> 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. IMO, it doesn’t. OP asked for what a meter is, not for what object is a meter. The latter has an implied “long” or “in size”.