2011 NEC PDF

[ASG]

Post has been deleted.

Copyright laws are very important.

See Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc. There is no copyright when the code becomes the law (assuming those re-publishing it aren't selling it).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

See Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, Inc. There is no copyright when the code becomes the law (assuming those re-publishing it aren't selling it).

First, since there are conflicting cases, as cited by the four dissenting judges, in other Circuits, that is the law only in the Fifth Circuit. It will only become the law of the land, if and when the issue is heard by the Supreme Court.

Second, that has nothing to do with this site's owner wishing to not provide links to copyrighted material. Such links will continue to be removed by the moderators.

 

[ASG]

First, since there are conflicting cases, as cited by the four dissenting judges, in other Circuits, that is the law only in the Fifth Circuit. It will only become the law of the land, if and when the issue is heard by the Supreme Court.

Second, that has nothing to do with this site's owner wishing to not provide links to copyrighted material. Such links will continue to be removed by the moderators.

I didn't say the site can moderate however they wish for whatever reason they wish. I think it is quite obvious Mike Holt has a certain relationship with the NFPA he wishes to maintain.

However, that's not the way the appeals court work. It's not a "law" anywhere, it is a ruling about how copyright law works. Judges don't make law, they make rulings. This court ruled that reprinting the law is not a copyright violation. Since this case nobody, AFAIK, has been sued for copyright infringement for publishing a code and won. The Supreme Court has ruled that the law is not copyrightable. Public resource.org has been publishing codes for years now and AFAIK nobody has won a case against them. This is not an underground site either. They have, in fact, in many instances filed declaratory judgements against publications and states that have tried to keep them from publishing the law. Thank god they exist, BTW, because I've had a few times where we've had the code reference some ASME standard that we didn't even have anywhere in the office.

Anyway, my whole point is for people to be aware and not to just act like anybody posting the code is violating copyright law (the post I was responding to).

 

[GoldDigger]

Anyway, my whole point is for people to be aware and not to just act like anybody posting the code is violating copyright law (the post I was responding to).

FWIW, there is still some question about whether reprinting (in facsimile form) the text document which has been incorporated by reference into the law is all that is required or whether NFPA has also lost rights on the more substantial derivative work which is the searchable electronic form PDF.
The second link that was removed was to a copy of the electronic document.
PublicResource.org has only, AFAIK, published facsimile copies of codes whose creators have been aggressive about their perceived rights.

PS: Mods: Is discussion of this topic also off limits, in the same way that union-related discussion is discouraged, or is only direct supplying of link information prohibited?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If someone wants to find a link to the nfpa they can easily do so by searching the internet. Let members do that if they wish but until Mike gives us permission to allow links to these site we have to let it be. No biggie-- you all can pm each other or whatever, you just can't provide links here.

I don't see any problem discussing the issue but it is out of our hands.

 

[kwired]

There is a free access to NFPA 70 on NFPA website. However it does not allow copy/paste, printing, etc. It is also not as easy to navigate to specific section or page as a PDF or the NEC plus version, it is a Java application and you can jump to different chapters but pretty much need to go one page at a time through each chapter to get to where you want to be within the chapter.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

However, that's not the way the appeals court work. It's not a "law" anywhere, it is a ruling about how copyright law works. ...

Case law in the form of a ruling by a court of record, for all practical purposes makes law for the area covered by the ruling court. It is a binding interpretation of that law in that jurisdiction until over ruled by a higher court. It is used as the preponderance of evidence in other jurisdictions, but is not binding in other jurisdictions.

 

[GoldDigger]

Case law in the form of a ruling by a court of record, for all practical purposes makes law for the area covered by the ruling court. It is a binding interpretation of that law in that jurisdiction until over ruled by a higher court. It is used as the preponderance of evidence in other jurisdictions, but is not binding in other jurisdictions.

That depends on whether the ruling is published or not. Published in this sense is a technical term, not just it being printed for all to see. If the court does not feel confident enough in its opinion to want to publish it, it is binding only on the case before the court at the time. It could still be used in arguments when the next similar case comes up, but like the Handbook it is explanatory and not binding.
Once an opinion is published, it becomes precedent for all cases in that area. The only viable arguments counter to it would be whether it applies or not. (Or an eventual appeal to a higher court once you lose....)

 

[macmikeman]

Come on, we are electricians and electrical contractors for the most part. I got the 11 code book for around a hundred bucks or maybe a 110. That didn't exactly break the bank, and I am quite sure I will recoup the investment over the next three years once we get around to adopting it, from my profits using the book.

 

[jumper]

Copyright laws are fairly clear on what is allowed or not.

They can be accessed here:http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

From the above site I can cite the following under Fair Use:

? 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The same law allows me to do this from my copy of the 2011 NEC PDF:

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Yet a direct link to illegal copies of the NEC is not allowed.

EOS.

 

[ASG]

Copyright laws are fairly clear on what is allowed or not.

They can be accessed here:http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

From the above site I can cite the following under Fair Use:

? 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40



The same law allows me to do this from my copy of the 2011 NEC PDF:



Yet a direct link to illegal copies of the NEC is not allowed.

EOS.

The issue is once it becomes the law if copyright still holds. I would argue (and Veeck did successfully) that once it is law it is public domain. I don't think you can use NFPA's own PDF but you can scan every page for all to see and you can convert the code into your own PDF or HTML version for all to see.

BTW, I have a hard copy that I do use but I also use that website for scanned copies of codes that I have to look for once in a blue moon and an HTML site that I use when copying and pasting code to let others know what code section I am referring to. The hard copy is good when I know what section I am looking for but the HTML version def helps when I am searching for keywords (much like this forum).

 

[Sierrasparky]

I realize not that MH allowing links to code online sources is his choice.
I do appreciate that there are places to obtain them.
It is very interesting that most other codes such as building, plumbing, are available directly from CA building website. The CA electric code is based on the NEC with some modifications. The only place you can get that is at the website mentioned here.

These are laws folks and nobody should own them. They must be available freely. How else can you expect one to obey them. We live in the days of the internet. Nobody is saying to re-publish copyrighted material. You want a hard copy pay for it. I would not want to go back to the olden days where you had to go to the city to look up a simple item.

That is my rant for the week

 

[GoldDigger]

...That is my rant for the week

Promise?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Promise?

Yup promise

 

[480sparky]

........Nobody is saying to re-publish copyrighted material. .........

But that is exactly what is being done by making torrent copies available for downloading. "Publish", in the legal sense, does NOT mean print ink on paper.

If you want a PDF for your computer or smart device, simply buy one from the NFPA. That's what I do.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You should be able to get it from the states website like all the other adopted laws.
It's in the public domain.

Not a new rant!

 

[480sparky]

You should be able to get it from the states website like all the other adopted laws.
It's in the public domain.

Not a new rant!

In most places, there's no laws to requires PDF files or printed copies be made available for free distribution. The law only needs to be made available. A printed copy in an public place (such as a building department's office or the library) is sufficient to meet the requirements.

 

[ASG]

In most places, there's no laws to requires PDF files or printed copies be made available for free distribution. The law only needs to be made available. A printed copy in an public place (such as a building department's office or the library) is sufficient to meet the requirements.

It's sufficient but it doesn't mean that somebody cannot release more copies and worry about there being a copyright issue. Just because the state is not making it available in PDF (due to cost or whatever reason) does not mean it is illegal to make it in PDF yourself and distribute it.

Why the state would put every code on their website but the electrical code, I have no idea. I'm guessing but may be the other codes were written by the state (so they had them electronically) while the electrical code is modifications to the NEC. I know that is true for the NYC codes.

 

[GoldDigger]

It's sufficient but it doesn't mean that somebody cannot release more copies and worry about there being a copyright issue. Just because the state is not making it available in PDF (due to cost or whatever reason) does not mean it is illegal to make it in PDF yourself and distribute it.

Why the state would put every code on their website but the electrical code, I have no idea. I'm guessing but may be the other codes were written by the state (so they had them electronically) while the electrical code is modifications to the NEC. I know that is true for the NYC codes.

I think that part of it is that the NFPA is very aggressive about enforcing their perceived rights.

 

[ASG]

I think that part of it is that the NFPA is very aggressive about enforcing their perceived rights.

I don't think so. Search "Free NEC". There is an obvious website that comes up as a link.