3 ms·
It's not nonsense. From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body doesn't pay anyone fo
by leoedin 5y ago
It's not nonsense. From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body doesn't pay anyone for the production of the standard.
Yes, the writer is typically employed by a relevant company. They're not working for free. But the body from which you must buy the standard is getting it for free.
This is exactly the same problem academia is facing. The big journal companies charge huge amounts for access to journals, but don't pay for their production. That's funded by universities.
In both cases, the bodies collating these documents are rent seekers making far more money than their services are worth.
- chrisseaton 5y ago> From the point of view of the standards body (which the comment was talking about) the work is free. The standards body _is_ its members. It's not practically a separate company - it's a vehicle for the members.
- necovek 5y agoThat's a somewhat idealised view: there is certainly value in it, which is why members all pay a hefty membership fee (to the tune of 21M CHF last year, which is half of their revenue). For details, check out their 2020 financials page: https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances I am only highlighting how proceeds from the sale of ISO standards are not being distributed to ISO members, including national standardization bodies, nor any contributors. I'd hope that country ISO members would push for their membership fees to cover for distribution of standards for free (even if it meant increasing those fees) — that'd be a much more sensible approach IMHO. Or they could optimize slightly not to need those royalty fees in the first place.