NEC- Supreme Court

[renosteinke]

I'd like to start a discussion about the effect of the recent case (Veeck/SBCCI), which infers that the NEC is in the public domain, and not protected by copyright.
A fair number of the posts in this section can be answered by a quick look at the NEC. I gather that the askers don't have access to a copy.
Moreover, I point out that our Host, who has no "right" to the NEC, has made a place for himself teaching, consulting, and writing about the NEC.
I have my opinions- I'd like to hear yours!

 

[bennie]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

You first.

 

[dan55]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Reno has a point about some of the users don't have access to a code book and many just want free advice, but for the most part it seems to be a great forum to try to gain knowledge in a constantly changing field.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

I quote and copy the code to writing all the time without "asking permission" to do so. However, it is obvious that I am not implying as if it is my own intellectual property.

In many cases, it is the responsibility of the electrical professional to document code sections and code content to support proposals, work orders, etc...

On the issue of making the code free to public view or use, so what! Electricians that buy the book don't even read it, and when they do read it, they don't understand it. Do you really think people are going to run out and get their "free" copy or run to the local building department to look up the informaton they need? No way, the book will hardly be opened.

The common person cant make heads ot tails of the NEC, and making the book free for use will do little to change this. When it is all said and done, the electrical professional will still be the prime user that will be required to purchase their copy for personal and professional use.

 

[brian john]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Ren: What’s your point?????????


Moreover, I point out that our Host, who has no "right" to the NEC, has made a place for himself teaching, consulting, and writing about the NEC.


As for not having a codebook, there are always some in any industry that find it easier to ask a question, than looks for the answer themselves.
I have at least 3 4 copies of the recent code and a copy of every code since I joined the trade. That won't stop me from being lazy and occasionally asking for an answer when I could just as easy look up the reference

Such is life

 

[roger]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Don't have access to a code book??????
They had better have a photographic memory then.

If an electrician showed up with out his/her other tools, he would be of no use to me and might as well find something else to do.

The need to own a tool pouch full is only part of the required tools on our tool list.

They can ask all day long and get answers but, when they are wasting my time waiting for the answers they are costing me money.

The other tools aren't free either.

Roger

[ July 16, 2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Originally posted by renosteinke: A fair number of the posts in this section can be answered by a quick look at the NEC. I gather that the askers don't have access to a copy.

The posts to which you refer might be answered by a quick look at the NEC, but only if (1) You know where to look, and (2) You know how to interpret what you are reading. None of us know everything, and each of us can use some help from time to time. That is the purpose and function of this forum.

But back to your opening sentence. You want to discuss the impact of that court case? Thank you, but I?ll pass. I have purchased my copy, and it will be nearly three years before I have to purchase another. That?s enough time for the copyright implications to have worked themselves out. In the mean time, if I need another copy, I am certain that I will have to pay for it (not just duplicate the one I have), because my copy does include a statement that lays claim to a copyright.

As to our host, I have no doubt that he has, in his turn, paid the appropriate fees to purchase the rights to publish his materials (that by the way contain their own copyright statements) and to use NEC-related information in his instruction classes.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

When I go to my lawyers office I notice that he has all these books on the law. I know these books contain "public" information.

I'll ask him next time if I can have a free set for my library.

Mike P.

 

[vanwalker]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

YES i have a code book. YES i paid for it. YES i ask questions that i have already looked up.YES i still would like an answer, for or to challenge MY thinking. THANKS GEO

 

[jxofaltrds]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

van

My point is that the NFPA will remain the publisher. No one is entitled to receive it for free.

Maybe someone else might publish it. If everyone still buys it from NFPA the others will stop publishing it.

I have not read the court case. Does someone have a link for it?

Mike P.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Mike,
Look at this thread, and the opinion of the 5th Circuit.
Don

 

[bthielen]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

I personally think the issue is being taken out of context. Is the code itself public domain or not? The code is written for the intended purpose of improving the integrity of our electrical systems and providing a certain degree of protection against fire and personal hazard. I don't believe it is intended to add job security to the electrical field. If so, I will be first in line to lobby against such legislation.

The question of copywrite, in my opinion, is related to the printing of the book and not the contents of the code. Since the code has been adopted by law and we are all required to meet the requirements of the code then it is only right and fair that we all have access to it, just as we do with any other law. If I choose to print the code I certainly have a right to charge a fee for the labor and materials accordingly but, it is not right to charge a fee for the contents within.

To make the contents of the code copywrited will subject the code to inconsitency between different printers. If we think it is difficult to understand and interpret now, it would become even worse if the contents are allowed to be copywrited.

Bob

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Bob,
All of the "model" codes have been and still are copyrighted by their publishers. The court ruling in the 5th Circuit only says that it is not a violation of the copyright to publish a model code online if that code has been adopted as law by a unit of government.
The problem that may be created by the free online publication of these codes is that either the cost of buying the printed version will go up enough to cover the costs of writing the code, or these organizations will stop creating "model" codes. When this happens every unit of government will have to write their own codes and we will have thousands of different codes.

I should note that since the 5th Circuit Decision was not reviewed by the US Supreme Court, the decision is the law only in the states that make up the 5th Circuit. Those states are Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In all other states, you are subject to a civil copyright infringement suit if you publish copyrighted codes online.
Don

[ July 23, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[bthielen]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Don,

I see your point. It would then be prudent that just the opposite of my last opinion would be in order. Perhaps very strict controls would be the more appropriate answer concerning who writes the code, which code is adopted, and the free printing of the codes online or otherwise. As long as the governing bodies' required codes are available, free or for a price, to the general public then there is no issue. Controlled publication would provide for more consistent reprint, no matter how confusing we think it might be.

I am not a licensed electrician but I am an electrical designer (engineer by hard knox but no degree) and the trading of information through forums such as this is a blessing. If the answers to these questions, no matter how simple they seem, are as easy to find as a "quick look at the NEC", then there would be no justification for this forum in the first place.

I am constantly being introduced to various codes both here in Minnesota, which in our field adopts the UL standards, and the rest of the world including CSA, CE, EIC, NFPA, etc. We already have a lot of various codes to follow as each governing district seems to want to adopt their own preferred specific variation. I don't think we want this to get even worse in a manner you have suggested.

Guess I stand corrected!

Bob

 

[jxofaltrds]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Ask and ye shall receive.

Thanxs Don now I have two days worth of reading!

Mike P.

 

[amp-dude]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Hey y'all,

I haven't heard anyone being up this option:

Have the government entities that adopt the Code as law, pay the NFPA for the right.

Seems fair to me. Then the copies of the Code (as law) could be provided for the cost of printing.

Cliff

 

[eprice]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Originally posted by amp-dude:
Hey y'all,

I haven't heard anyone being up this option:

Have the government entities that adopt the Code as law, pay the NFPA for the right.

Seems fair to me. Then the copies of the Code (as law) could be provided for the cost of printing.

Cliff

I did see someone bring this idea up on another forum. Depending on how this thing shakes out, this idea may be the best way to deal with it. You do realize however, that the government entities will certainly pass the cost on in the form of higher permit fees? Then the question will be how much cost to the entities and how much increase in a permit fee? If the increase in a permit fee comes close to the current cost of an NEC, it will be like the electrician buying a new NEC for every job

 

[hbendillo]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Than you Roger for your usual tirade about someone asking a question. You know some people are just not very literate, especially in the construction trade. However, these people can be very good mechanics without being literate. Yes, I know that you should have someone running a job that is licensed, literate and competent in every way but that is not always the case. So what if they ask someone else for an answer. I think this is showing some intiative rather than guessing. Some people may be lazy, some may be dumb, some may need a little backup and some just need to be helped out of an occasional jam. Someone else probably learned something by us simply answering the question.

 

[kqresq]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

Welcome all to Mike Holt's Copyright Attorney's Forum!!

 

[slicer]

Re: NEC- Supreme Court

I think using this forum for quick answers is not an efficient use of time. However, I also think that it is beneficial to use all resources to find solutions to customer problems and requests. I consider fellow tradesmen to be a resource. Perspective and experience add a great deal to code knowledge.

The questions asked here by others cause me to open my code book more often to help as well as to refresh my memory. Keep them coming!