Reasonably priced C11 standard?

[Patrick Scheible]

There was only a 1 year window for renewals, so a search could be
considerably optimized.

Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early? I'm pretty
sure that they have. Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
holder to another. Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
motivation was.

Also, the Copyright Office cautions that the notices of renewal were
sometimes published up to a year later than when they actually renewed.
I think to be sure you have to search them all.

Although the short cut is quite onerous by today's standard of almost
instant retrieval of information, it's still quite doable for particular
works.

Right. There are all kinds of wrinkles, especially the newer the work. Which
is why it couldn't hurt to buy an hour or two of a copyright lawyer's time
for general advice.

Right, but consulting a lawyer would only be worth it if you knew of a
moneymaking opportunity connected with that particular work. A library
that is scanning a brittle book for preservation is not going to consult
a lawyer or copyright search expert about every such title. They will
see "after 1923" and just scan it, print one copy, and then destroy the scans,
as libraries are allowed to do under the act.

Actually, paying the copyright office is an excellent idea. What do they
charge these days, ~$100/hr? There's a minimum amount of research time, too,
I think. That sounds like a lot, but in the region where I work the average
salary is nearly $100k/yr, or roughly $50/working hour, or $11/hr. Consider
how much money has been spent just complaining about copyright!

Though I certainly am not trying to defend existing law (or copyright in
general), it's worth point out that technically the labour and fees need
only be expended once. The knowledge gained can then be shared with others.
Not ideal, but it's better than just whining. (Not saying that you're
whining, BTW... I mean, any more than the rest of us

I'm sure the individuals involved are worth their pay. But the point is
it should be easy to determine whether a work is in copyright. It's not
1965 anymore.

At that price point, an individual who borrows a book through
interlibrary loan and wants to study it for more than a few weeks has no
legal way to do so, people preserving brittle books are extremely
limited in how they can share their work. The majority of pre-1964
works are copyright expired, but it's just too expensive to determine
that for any particular work. Institutions like libraries can't afford
to take a chance.

-- Patrick

 

[Keith Thompson]

I have this one: 3955.pdf

I can copy and paste from it,
while reading it in an Acrobat reader.

AS 3955—1991
ISO/IEC 9899: 1990
Australian Standard
Programming languages—C

ANSI Store order #X194129 Downloaded: 6/7/2005 3:23:54 PM ET
Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited.

This Standard was prepared by the Standards Australia Committee
on Information Systems—
Vocabulary and Software.
It is identical with and has been reproduced
from ISO/IEC 9899:1990 Programming languages— C.

I can copy and paste from my copy too; it looks like some optical
character recognition was done. But if I zoom in on the text,
I can see artifacts that make it clear that it was scanned from a
printed copy -- and copy-and-pasting tends to produce errors with
similar-looking characters, like '.' vs. ','.

 

[Walter Banks]

Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early? I'm pretty
sure that they have. Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
holder to another. Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
motivation was.

I once was a partner in a publishing house. What you are seeing in
apparently frequent renewals is actually reprints which are usually
done ant the same time incorporating corrections. This is effectively
a new work which gets re-registered so that it is actually covered
by copyright. Books show print history with the registrations.


w..

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Would you expect to be able to tell? Do you have any idea how large
their expenses are? Do you have any idea how small the number of copies
they sell of the average standard?

As far as the C standards, no, I don't. But I have participated in other
standards bodies and I don't know how the sponsoring companies account for
it (I'm not an accountant) but I do know everybody views it as a goodwill
gesture to the community and basically spends what has to be spent on
travel, time away from principal jobs etc. and they figure they make it back
on name recognition and sometimes sales. Basically nobody looks at it as a
way to make money (directly) for the company it is more of a marketing angle
and they just write it off and hope for the best.

it's entirely possible that the total expenses divided by the number of
copies sold might indeed come close to, or even exceed, $200/copy.

They might but that wasn't really my point. My point is there is intangible
benefit to participating in standards and making them easily available so
they will be adopted after all that is the whole point of standards. If you
publish standards and make them hard to obtain or expensive then sure the
implementors will have to buy them, that's their business expense. But then
people who use the standards and the tools written to them *won't* have
access to the standards. The companies I've worked for are willing to spend
on this and I guess it ends at the standard body or publishing house. I mean
we don't get to sell copies.

don't have anywhere near enough relevant information to distinguish
unsubsidized prices from subsidized ones. Do you have enough
information? If so, could you provide it to us?

It's a fair question but as not-an-accountant all I can say is there is
obviously a cost to this but the companies I worked for viewed it as a cost
of doing business, marketing, and community. They didn't worry about it that
much. Like many other things in business, they don't expect that everything
pays for itself. Sometimes they lose on something but they fund it from a
more profitable line of business. That's the way business has to work unless
you have only one very focused product. They also don't print or distribute
the final document so that may make a difference. As far as my view, the
standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
don't like it.

 

[Walter Banks]

So fixing a couple of errata makes it a new work? If some dishonest
person published a copy of it without buying the rights, they could
successfully defend themselves in court because they pirated the 2nd
printing with a few minor corrections?

No, the copyright is on the whole work but copyright violations
would still be on everything from the copied work except the few
minor corrections assuming they were original.

Someone reminded me earlier today of a lawsuit several years ago
that had 9 lines copied from someone else's work that resulted in
a serious settlement

w..

 

[Walter Banks]

As far as my view, the
standard should be 10 or 15 dollars or actual printing or distribution
cost. All the work was already paid for by the committe participants and
sponsor companies and we as far as I know don't ever get anything back from
sale of standards etc. So where is all that money going? I think it's going
to the standards organization to pay for their junkets etc. That's why I
don't like it.

International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
in making things workable.

WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
(or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.

But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
a test suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
was different between two copies.

Walter Banks

 

[Ian Collins]

International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
in making things workable.

WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
(or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.

I would be very surprised if the numbers sold were that low. Everywhere
I have worked has at least one copy floating around and I'm sure there
are a good number of independent developers (and language lawyers!) who
paid for the $18 or $30 copes.

 

[Keith Thompson]

International standards organizations organizational bureaucracies primarily
in place to administer maintaining and distribution of the standards. I don't
see them going on junkets specifically but they do play a significant role
in making things workable.

WG-14 which I am familiar with has effectively made almost all the
material it has available on line. This material is essentially the same
(or may infact be identical) to the released standards. In the case of
C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
less. I would suspect the release process for the standard document
probably would not be paid for by the collected fees.

But if I want to run conformance test suites on a new compiler then
a test suite company can specify that is is using a specific standards
document as the basis of the test suites and the standards organization
is responsible for selling the same document to the test suite vendor
and I and all others who purchase the standards documents. The
difference is the standards documents can all be traced back to a specific
document. For users who need that professionally the fees are very
low cost compared to finding out that a single but important sentence
was different between two copies.

Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
that purpose.

 

[Walter Banks]

Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
that purpose.

There are lots of technological solutions that would work.

ISO has standards for documents it provides. Making changes
in standard document form and getting them approved by ISO
member countries would make all the changes to C seem trivial.

w..

 

[Phil Carmody]

sales = sales++; // works for me

Best post of this subthread - thanks Kaz!

Phil

 

[Nick Keighley]

In France, it is legal to provide a copy of a work protected by copyright
to anyone in one's "close circle" (as defined by case law) for personal use.

Some of you (mostly anglophones) have been brain-washed by "big media"(*)
and are waaay too docile when it comes to copyright.

well I get paid to produce software so I'm not entirely against legal
protection for intellectual property.

[cue free software rants]

(*) It's funny (in a sad way) that "big media" are the ACTUAL "thief"
in this story, pilfering and ransacking the public domain since $DEITY
invented the talking mouse.

for instance?

 

[Nick Keighley]

James Kuyper wrote:


Notice that being supportive of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted
works exclusively for personal use does not mean that one fails to
"understand the value of having copyrights".

does that "personal use" clause apply to music and films?

Moreover, supporting the totalitarian control of copyrighted works as it is
demanded by distributors does by no mean implies that one "understands the
value of having copyrights".

he said "reasonable enforcement"

 In fact, it demonstrates an appalling lack of
understanding on the role of copyright in a developed society, that only
benefits distributors and no one else.  And this includes the very same
people who actually produce copyrighted works.  Hence, the appropriate
"brain-washed" reference.

opinion masquerading as fact.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Fritz Wuehler wrote:

I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
not making them freely available makes them less useful.

 

[James Kuyper]

I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
not making them freely available makes them less useful.

If the sales of standard should only cover the costs of distribution,
who do you think should pay the costs of developing the standards in the
first place? I think that having the users of the standards pay those
costs is quite reasonable. Keep in mind the Golden Rule - he who
provides the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Nick Keighley]

On 02/ 9/12 09:15 AM, Walter Banks wrote:

In the case of
C standard documents I suspect the total sales are in the hundreds or
less. [...]

I would be very surprised if the numbers sold were that low.  Everywhere
I have worked has at least one copy floating around

wow. The only reason my previous company had a copy of the C Standard
is because we asked the complier implementor for some documentation
for his compiler and that's what he sent us. A bargain in my eyes. I
think I was the only who used it.

The only copy of the C++ standard I've ever seen is one I paid for
myself. It's worrying the number of old editions of Stroustrup you see
in work places. The language changed significantly enough that these
are actually wrong.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Surely a published checksum or PGP signature on the PDF file would serve
that purpose.

that wouldn't tell you /what/ had changed

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

If the sales of standard should only cover the costs of distribution,
who do you think should pay the costs of developing the standards in the
first place? I think that having the users of the standards pay those
costs is quite reasonable. Keep in mind the Golden Rule - he who
provides the gold, makes the rules.

No, you are missing a key point. The people making money from the standard
*are not* the same people who bear the costs of developing the standards!

As Walter and I have said, it is the member organizations who bear the costs
of creating standards. We do not receive any direct renumeration from the
costs associated with participating in standards committees and developing
the standards. The overwhelming portion of the costs of developing a
standard is with the committee members, not with the standards bodies. But
the standards bodies are the ones who sell the standard publications and
receive the payment. It would not be incorrect to say they are making money
off our backs by selling standards publications for more than *their* actual
costs. We have *already contributed* our time to developing the standard. We
don't charge the standards committee for our travel, loss of job time, etc.

That is why many of us feel the standards should be sold for actual costs to
the standards body. Anything over that is hard to justify and smacks of
theft.

 

[James Kuyper]

On 02/13/2012 07:58 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
....

wow. The only reason my previous company had a copy of the C Standard
is because we asked the complier implementor for some documentation
for his compiler and that's what he sent us. ...

So the implementor didn't have (or wasn't willing to give you) a copy of
the documenting listing that implementation's choice on matters that are
implementation-defined? Did you have any leverage to insist on getting
such a document (assuming it even existed)?

... A bargain in my eyes. I
think I was the only who used it.

In the places where I've worked, I've seen a number of copies of
Schildt, but the only copies of the C standard that I've ever seen were
the ones I myself downloaded.

 

[James Kuyper]

On 02/13/2012 11:27 AM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
....

No, you are missing a key point. The people making money from the standard
*are not* the same people who bear the costs of developing the standards!

As Walter and I have said, it is the member organizations who bear the costs
of creating standards. We do not receive any direct renumeration from the
costs associated with participating in standards committees and developing
the standards. The overwhelming portion of the costs of developing a
standard is with the committee members, not with the standards bodies. But
the standards bodies are the ones who sell the standard publications and
receive the payment.

It's very nice of you to provide those services without remuneration
(and no, I'm not being sarcastic). However, do you have any evidence
that the money collected by the organizations which do sell the
standards exceeds the costs incurred by those organizations in
connection with those standards? I've never seen anyone come up with
hard figures relevant to that question. They could be making tons of
money off the standards; they could be losing tons, too. I don't have
enough information to determine which of those two cases apply - do you?

....

That is why many of us feel the standards should be sold for actual costs to
the standards body.

Do you have any hard evidence to support a belief that this is not
already the case? I'm referring to hard numbers for the actual costs and
the actual revenues.

 

[Patrick Scheible]

I think standards should be sold for cost of distribution. In a sense
not making them freely available makes them less useful.

It certainly does, but where should the ISO's budget come from? They
need some staff to set up conferences, distribute publications, sysadmin
to run their web site, etc. Open to ideas,

-- Patrick