4 ms·

> Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free". And? If the authors

> Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free". And? If the authors didn't think they got any benefits—or rather, the companies employing the authors and paying them—didn't think they got any benefit, then they wouldn't make the work on ISO standards part of their job. Just because the benefit is non-financial does not mean there is no benefit. People have recognized that having common standards is a general benefit to society. For a history of this see Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880 by Craig Murphy and JoAnne Yates (ISBN 9781421440033): * https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/engineering-rules ISO has bills and overhead to cover, just like anyone else. Just because some of its work is covered by 'donated' effort doesn't mean all of it can. (I wouldn't object to having ISO standards being freely available, it's just that I can see some reasons for why they are not.)

remram 5y ago
Imagine buying a book for $50 on Amazon. Then you find out none of that money goes to the author, and they didn't pick the price either, Amazon are the ones charging $50. Whether the author needs that money or not is not the point, you would surely feel angry at the pricing, and would wish the author had put it on his website instead (where you could grab it for free), Amazon had priced it more fairly (paying for shipping and some overhead is fine but not $50), or the book had been authored by some GitHub organization in the open.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > you would surely feel angry at the pricing Not if the author agreed to this arrangement ahead of time.
  - dralley 5y ago
    Perhaps, but it does bring into question whether the fees paid are actually benefiting the standards whatsoever.
    - throw0101a 5y ago
      I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.
      - convolvatron 5y ago
        this discussion has been going on for decades. I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'. I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work. the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing. the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access. I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all. edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
        throw0101a 5y ago
        > * I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'.* 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If they can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
  - remram 5y ago
    I'm saying nothing about the author, I'm saying me the buyer feel ripped off. Does it really matter to you whether the author or the author's company signed off on it?
- nunez 5y ago
  I mean that's kind of how publishing works today Authors get paid a small royalty; publishers set the price and get most of the scratch

remram 5y ago

Imagine buying a book for $50 on Amazon. Then you find out none of that money goes to the author, and they didn't pick the price either, Amazon are the ones charging $50. Whether the author needs that money or not is not the point, you would surely feel angry at the pricing, and would wish the author had put it on his website instead (where you could grab it for free), Amazon had priced it more fairly (paying for shipping and some overhead is fine but not $50), or the book had been authored by some GitHub organization in the open.

throw0101a 5y ago
> you would surely feel angry at the pricing Not if the author agreed to this arrangement ahead of time.
- dralley 5y ago
  Perhaps, but it does bring into question whether the fees paid are actually benefiting the standards whatsoever.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    I have no knowledge of the internal workings of ISO, and whether the current arrangement is absolutely necessary or just legacy/habit from the past. Perhaps a different funding model for the organization could be done. I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.
    - convolvatron 5y ago
      this discussion has been going on for decades. I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'. I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work. the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing. the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access. I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all. edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
      - throw0101a 5y ago
        > * I've never heard any argument on the ISO side other than a blanket 'these things cost money'.* 2020 annual report, finances: * https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances * https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html https://www.iso.org/annual-reports.html Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF. If they can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
- remram 5y ago
  I'm saying nothing about the author, I'm saying me the buyer feel ripped off. Does it really matter to you whether the author or the author's company signed off on it?
nunez 5y ago
I mean that's kind of how publishing works today Authors get paid a small royalty; publishers set the price and get most of the scratch