Free PDF version of the 2011 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
I downloaded my version from publicresource.org. Any document that is law has to be available to the public. Will wait for the 2011 version to be put on the website.
 
Hv&Lv said:
I downloaded my version from publicresource.org. Any document that is law has to be available to the public. Will wait for the 2011 version to be put on the website.
Click to expand...

Why is the NEC Law? Even the NFPA says the document is "purely advisory". I doubt the NFPA would be required to make any version of the NEC free. Your state will adopt a uniformed statewide building code that makes reference to the ICC codes as well as the NEC but that in itself does not make it law. The USBC is law and what if references are compulsory documents to support it but unless your state does something different than my state (Virginia) does the NEC is not a law.

You might find illegal copies on the web but not a legit copy unless it is part of an NFPA promotion for buying another book as i did when I got my 2011 electronic version.
 
radiopet said:
Why is the NEC Law? Even the NFPA says the document is "purely advisory". I doubt the NFPA would be required to make any version of the NEC free. Your state will adopt a uniformed statewide building code that makes reference to the ICC codes as well as the NEC but that in itself does not make it law. The USBC is law and what if references are compulsory documents to support it but unless your state does something different than my state (Virginia) does the NEC is not a law.

You might find illegal copies on the web but not a legit copy unless it is part of an NFPA promotion for buying another book as i did when I got my 2011 electronic version.
Click to expand...

Illegal copies! So wrong! If anyone finds an illegal copy of the 2011 you let me know. I will um er.... investigate it :cool:
 
Paul,
Have you ever looked at the opinion of the Fifth US Circuit Court in the case of Veeck V Southern Building Code Congress? It basically said that once a unit of government has adopted a "model" code, then that code can be openly posted on the internet without a copyright violation.
 
As Don notes, there is case law that means state adopted NEC (with ammendments) is in the public domain.

Quoting from the judgement:
The issue in this en banc case is the extent to which a private organization may assert copyright protection for its model codes [the model code here being the NEC], after the models have been adopted by a legislative body and become "the law". Specifically, may a code-writing organization prevent a website operator from posting the text of a model code where the code is identified simply as the building code of a city that enacted the model code as law? Our short answer is that as law, the model codes enter the public domain and are not subject to the copyright holder's exclusive prerogatives. As model codes, however, the organization's works retain their protected status.
Click to expand...

Thus you can get state adopted versions of the NEC as the "electrical code" (and some other stuff, for example elevator and building codes) completely free and legal from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Summary: Whilst the NEC is a copyrighted document and subject to copyright law including no copying the thing, the state adopted electrical codes (which incorporate the NEC mostly verbatim) are public domain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
iwire said:
As I understand it that court ruling applies only to a certain area and not the entire US.
Click to expand...
The court ruling is mandatory precedent only in the Fifth Circuit, the states of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The case has not been appealed to the US Supreme Court so this precedent will hold extreme weight in the event of other such cases in another Circuit. If another Circuit would hold to the opposite, it would most likely end up in the Supreme Court.
It is my opinion that the case in the Fifth Circuit is the reason that the NFPA has made all of their documents available for viewing online.
 
iwire said:
As I understand it that court ruling applies only to a certain area and not the entire US.
Click to expand...
It may have (prior to what would have been the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court), had the case against Veeck succeeded. But it didn't, so there is no change to the status quo.

The principles underlying the Veeck case go back to a Supreme Court ruling in 1834, that principle being all law that citizens are expected to comply with must be freely available, albeit the definition of "freely" has varied a bit over the years.

The Veeck case is just a failed regional spat by the code-making bodies to try and reverse law settled for over a century.

The funny (or perhaps not so funny) thing is that they had a go in the 1980s in the First Circuit juristiction, and lost that one too.

So the position remains unaltered from 1834; all law is public domain. The state electrical code is law. Thus its public domain.

Last edited by iwire; December 31st, 2010 at 04:04 PM. Reason: Removed link / The forum policy has been to remove links to that site.
Click to expand...
Oh!. I fully accept that this is a private forum with no oversight or other such requirements, but having a policy of sites that cant be linked to is interesting, and I wonder why that is the case for this particular site? Is there a list of such sites so I can avoid them in the future?
 
dbuckley said:
Oh!. I fully accept that this is a private forum with no oversight or other such requirements, but having a policy of sites that cant be linked to is interesting, and I wonder why that is the case for this particular site? Is there a list of such sites so I can avoid them in the future?
Click to expand...

No there is no such list and things can change from post to post. You will just have to accept that as well.

As far as the site you linked to we have been removing links to that site for at least a couple of years.
 
dbuckley said:
The funny (or perhaps not so funny) thing is that they had a go in the 1980s in the First Circuit juristiction, and lost that one too.

So the position remains unaltered from 1834; all law is public domain. The state electrical code is law. Thus its public domain.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is not as black and white as you portray it. Copyright laws still also exist and the laws are in conflict.

Certainly you can see the NFPAs position just as much as I can see the need for laws to be readily accessible.
 
iwire said:
Obviously it is not as black and white as you portray it. Copyright laws still also exist and the laws are in conflict.
Click to expand...

The judgement addressed the copyright status of model codes (eg the NEC itself) and local enactments of the NEC which become state law:

We emphasize that in continuing to write and publish model building codes, SBCCI is creating copyrightable works of authorship. When those codes are enacted into law, however, they become to that extent "the law" of the governmental entities and may be reproduced or distributed as "the law" of those jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

By the code writing bodies getting their works into law, they are giving up their copyright on the version of those documents as enacted in the local law; the actual source document (eg NEC 2008) is still their copyright, even though 99.99% of it has been released by their own actions into the public domain. It is a copyright offense to distribute a copy of the "real" NEC outside of the publishers wishes.

If the code writers want to retain full copyright control, they have to keep the work from becomming law. One could then wonder what would be the use of a NEC that wasn't adopted anywhere by anybody and thus had no enforcible provisions. Yes, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. But it's not a new rock; its been there since the 1834, well before there was a NEC.

iwire said:
Certainly you can see the NFPAs position just as much as I can see the need for laws to be readily accessible.
Click to expand...

What do you think the NFPAs position is?
 
dbuckley said:
The judgement addressed the copyright status of model codes (eg the NEC itself) and local enactments of the NEC which become state law:



By the code writing bodies getting their works into law, they are giving up their copyright on the version of those documents as enacted in the local law; the actual source document (eg NEC 2008) is still their copyright, even though 99.99% of it has been released by their own actions into the public domain. It is a copyright offense to distribute a copy of the "real" NEC outside of the publishers wishes.

If the code writers want to retain full copyright control, they have to keep the work from becomming law. One could then wonder what would be the use of a NEC that wasn't adopted anywhere by anybody and thus had no enforcible provisions. Yes, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. But it's not a new rock; its been there since the 1834, well before there was a NEC.
Click to expand...

I am not going to pretend to know enough about the law to keep commenting and IMO neither do you ... unless you practice law full time along with your other jobs.

The one comment I will make is this ........ if this was as black and white as you are trying to lay it out it would already have been settled and it has not been.


What do you think the NFPAs position is?
Click to expand...

Seems pretty obvious to me, if the NFPAs work is distributed free everything will have to change. The NFPA would either have to go under or they would have to charge any government body that wants to adopt the code. This would likely result in each area writing there own code which would really be a problem for those of us trying to work in many areas.
 
iwire said:
I am not going to pretend to know enough about the law to keep commenting and IMO neither do you ... unless you practice law full time along with your other jobs.
Click to expand...
I dont need to be a lawyer; I just need to be able to be willing tp take the time and effort to read what the courts have said, including linking to other judgements where neccessary.

All the issues you have raised (and loads more) have been addressed in the court's judgement. Including this statement:

Seems pretty obvious to me, if the NFPAs work is distributed free everything will have to change. The NFPA would either have to go under or they would have to charge any government body that wants to adopt the code. This would likely result in each area writing there own code which would really be a problem for those of us trying to work in many areas.
Click to expand...

Theres no point in me re-iterating what the courts have said.

And contrary to your continuing assertion, the issue is (at this moment in time) black and white. The code making panel have tried it on, twice, and failed.

I have a general policy of not repeating myself on forums, and I see I've fallen into that trap, so I'll make this my last word on the issue.
 
The NFPA is a non profit that received over 3.5 million in gov't grants in 2008. I don't mind waiting till the pdf is available on a public domain site.
There are numerous building inspection sites that have various codes available for download, including the NEC version they have adopted. Some are slower than most at adopting versions. Didn't New York JUST adopt the 2008 version? This year? Now that the 2011 is out there are a couple of states looking into adopting it but most will stay with 2008 for awhile. The same happens every cycle...
 
iwire said:
Seems pretty obvious to me, if the NFPAs work is distributed free everything will have to change. The NFPA would either have to go under or they would have to charge any government body that wants to adopt the code. This would likely result in each area writing there own code which would really be a problem for those of us trying to work in many areas.
Click to expand...

You might be right but I don't see keeping the NFPA afloat as a good reason to circumvent the law. If the courts determine that adopted codes need to be free and open to the public then the NFPA will need to find an alternate source of revenue. It might even be true now just that they're not telling us. :)
 
infinity said:
I don't see keeping the NFPA afloat as a good reason to circumvent the law.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with you and that was not really what I was trying to say.

I was asked what I thought the NFPAs position was. I am not saying they are purposely trying to circumvent the law I am saying it seems to be in their best interest to do whatever they legally can to maintain how its been.


If the courts determine that adopted codes need to be free and open to the public then the NFPA will need to find an alternate source of revenue.
Click to expand...

That may in fact be the 'right thing' to do but that very well be the wrong thing for the trade and the public itself.

It will be interesting how this will all play out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top