Free PDF version of the 2011 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
...

It will be interesting how this will all play out.
Click to expand...
The way I see now and likely in the future is that only the adopting government body is permitted to make the "code model" publicly available... and even then, they are not required to make it electronically available nor are they required to furnish printed copies for free.

To make publicly available, say for state adoption, could be as limited as a single hard copy located anywhere they want, so long as its location when asked is provided and access to that single hard copy is not-more-than minimally restricted (such as accessible only during normal business hours).

Good ol' freedom of information doesn't mean access has to be on the terms of the person desiring that information.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well....I would think that is true on the issue of the USBC but not the voluntary compulsory documents such as the NFPA 70. Try dropping the NFPA a e-mail saying that the NFPA documents should be posted FREE using that logic and I guess the courts will have to decide....;)
 
radiopet said:
Well....I would think that is true on the issue of the USBC but not the voluntary compulsory documents such as the NFPA 70. Try dropping the NFPA a e-mail saying that the NFPA documents should be posted FREE using that logic and I guess the courts will have to decide....;)
Click to expand...
The code in the case I cited works the same as the NEC. It is a privately developed code and is not "law" until adopted by a unit of government.
As far as the NPFA documents being posted free...they all are. The NFPA made all of their documents available for free viewing on the web after this case, and in my opinion it was a direct response to the opinion in the case. I expect that in future cases, they will argue that the free viewing is enough and will attempt to retain all their copyright rights. Only the courts will be able to say if this will work.

As a side note, it is my opinion that the PDF only electronic version of the 2011 NEC will make this problem worse and not better. The PDF is not near as user friendly as the previous electronic versions of the NEC were. I think this non-user friendly version will lead more to look for a "free" version.
 
Smart $ said:
To make publicly available, say for state adoption, could be as limited as a single hard copy located anywhere they want, so long as its location when asked is provided and access to that single hard copy is not-more-than minimally restricted (such as accessible only during normal business hours).

Good ol' freedom of information doesn't mean access has to be on the terms of the person desiring that information.
Click to expand...

But that is not what the courts have held. The ruling states that laws do not have copyright. That means that even if the state decided to be a stinker and only offer it in hardcopy, anyone has a right to make an electronic scan. Since the original isn't copyrighted that scan can be freely distributed by any means by anyone.
 
Smart $ said:
To make publicly available, say for state adoption, could be as limited as a single hard copy located anywhere they want, so long as its location when asked is provided and access to that single hard copy is not-more-than minimally restricted (such as accessible only during normal business hours).
Click to expand...

I think this has been the prevailing mindset for some time, and when this sort of thing was the case the various code making bodies were happy.

Once the documents started getting published on the web, which as public domain documents they can lawfully be, thats when the code making bodies started to get the heebie jeebies, as (literally) everyone would have access to "their" work without cost, or more precisely, without payment to the code making bodies. Hence they went to court in the hope of putting the genie back in the bottle.

The courts declined to put the clock back, stating that genies may be free.
 
dbuckley said:
... access to "their" work without cost, or more precisely, without payment to the code making bodies. ...
Click to expand...

DBuckely,
Good point.
I do understand that expenses must be covered.

IMO, I don't mind the cumbersomeness of a locked PDF,
and don't mind paying cash for a Hard-Bound version,
in support of expenses, for this 'public' document.

IMO, there needs to be a slightly 'un-locked' version of the PDF,
so I could at least make notes in the file, on the fly.

I also have been reading that the PDF ticket
is not available on ALL copies purchased,
and that you don't know
until after you have paid for the book. :mad:
 
dbuckley said:
I think this has been the prevailing mindset for some time, and when this sort of thing was the case the various code making bodies were happy.

Once the documents started getting published on the web, which as public domain documents they can lawfully be, thats when the code making bodies started to get the heebie jeebies, as (literally) everyone would have access to "their" work without cost, or more precisely, without payment to the code making bodies. Hence they went to court in the hope of putting the genie back in the bottle.

The courts declined to put the clock back, stating that genies may be free.
Click to expand...

Matthew_B said:
But that is not what the courts have held. The ruling states that laws do not have copyright. That means that even if the state decided to be a stinker and only offer it in hardcopy, anyone has a right to make an electronic scan. Since the original isn't copyrighted that scan can be freely distributed by any means by anyone.
Click to expand...
I understand... So I guess I have to ask whether a regularly purchased copy can be copied and that copy be freely distributed... or does it have to be a copy of a "de-copyrighted" copy??? ;)
 
Smart $ said:
I understand... So I guess I have to ask whether a regularly purchased copy can be copied and that copy be freely distributed... or does it have to be a copy of a "de-copyrighted" copy??? ;)
Click to expand...
I don't know about distributing, but some people might be inclined to use their purchased copy to scan in the sections of the code that are of the most interest to them so they can have a pdf version that works like it is supposed to.
 
Smart $ said:
I understand... So I guess I have to ask whether a regularly purchased copy can be copied and that copy be freely distributed... or does it have to be a copy of a "de-copyrighted" copy??? ;)
Click to expand...
You absolutely may not copy the NEC as published, it is a copyrighted document, and to copy it is unlawful.

You may happily copy any State's published law as it is in the public domain.

What I've been wondering about is that since different States have different adoptions and modifcations of the model code, and since ECs actually work to State rules, not the NEC, why do ECs buy the NEC and not the version pubished by the State in which they work?
 
dbuckley said:
You absolutely may not copy the NEC as published, it is a copyrighted document, and to copy it is unlawful.

You may happily copy any State's published law as it is in the public domain.
What I've been wondering about is that since different States have different adoptions and modifcations of the model code, and since ECs actually work to State rules, not the NEC, why do ECs buy the NEC and not the version pubished by the State in which they work?
Click to expand...
And that be the gist of my original statement about a state making it publicly avaiable.

To my knowledge, the adopting states do not publish the NEC. I know Ohio does not. If the state only adopts the code and does not publish it, how does one get a "de-copyrighted" copy???
 
Smart $ said:
To my knowledge, the adopting states do not publish the NEC. I know Ohio does not. If the state only adopts the code and does not publish it, how does one get a "de-copyrighted" copy???
Click to expand...

On the site a link can't be published to(!), they have Ohio code for
The Ohio Building Code, which incorporates IBC-2006, the 2006 International Building Code.
The Ohio Fire Code, which incorporates IFC-2006, the 2006 International Fire Code.
The Ohio Mechanical Code, which incorporates IMC-2006, the 2006 International Mechanical Code.
The Ohio Plumbing Code, which incorporates IPC-2006, the 2006 International Plumbing Code.
Click to expand...
but not the Ohio electrical code.

Electrical code is published and on the web site for the states and cities of:

Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas (NEC and IEEE/ANSI C2-2002, the National Electrical Safety Code), California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, The City of St. Louis, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey (and National Electrical Safety Code), Las Vegas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Click to expand...


hurk27 said:
All we get from the state of Indiana is a PDF with only the codes that was amended from here:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T06750/A00170.PDF?

They say we can order from a site the full NEC (IEC) with the Indiana amendments but I have never ordered it, I always just print out the PDF and put notes in my NEC, and make the changes myself.
Click to expand...

You'll note in that PDF that it says:

This rule, with the incorporated National Electrical Code, 2008 Edition, is available for review and reference at the Department of Homeland Security, 402 West Washington Street, Room W246, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. (Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission; 675 IAC 17-1.8-2; filed Jul 27, 2009, 10:39 a.m.: 20090826-IR-675090140FRA)
Click to expand...

Which presumably satisfies the requirement for the law to be publicly available. Of course, it's law, so it is public domain, so you could copy the whole thing while you were there, take it away, and put it up on a website!
 
dbuckley said:
What I've been wondering about is that since different States have different adoptions and modifcations of the model code, and since ECs actually work to State rules, not the NEC, why do ECs buy the NEC and not the version pubished by the State in which they work?
Click to expand...

In MA, RI and CT we use the NEC ... with amendments. They do not publish a modified NEC. You must use the NEC and check the separate amendments for changes.

Here in MA I can buy the NEC with the MA amendments in the same binding but still not within the copyrighted NEC. The amendments are presented separately in front of the complete unmodified NEC.

I go in with highlighter and highlight all the NEC sections that have been changed by MA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top