Online/Digital version of the 18th Edition od BS7671

[ban-all-sheds]

And if you want to drive a car on the roads you have to pay money to a private company.

How would you feel if you were forced to pay significant sums of money to find out what the Road Traffic Act(s) etc said?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think what BAS is missing is the element of the sale price paying for the cost of producing the content in the first place. Ie, you are not just paying for a stack of papers with some ink on, or an electronic equivalent - you are paying for a significant amount of technical content which did cost serious amounts of cash to produce.

legislation.gov.uk contains vast amounts of content which cost serious amounts of cash to produce.

 

[JohnW2]

I hadn't missed that, but it's far from being the only mandatory expense. For example, for someone doing gas work they are required to join Gas Safe which is a private company.

That's different, and no-one is suggesting that everything someone must have in order to do their job should be supplied free - taken to its ultimate conclusion, that would include tools, registration fees, insurance, vans and even premises!

The point is that any rules to which a person is (literally or effectively) obliged to work (and which often/usually will cost 'millions' to produce) are free if they are constituted as legislation, but not free if they are not.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Simon - imagine we had no wiring regulations whatsoever, and it was agreed that we should create some, and that they should be a national standard. Who do you think should pay for them to be developed?

 

[SimonH2]

The point is that any rules to which a person is (literally or effectively) obliged to work (and which often/usually will cost 'millions' to produce) are free if they are constituted as legislation, but not free if they are not.

Well BS7671 is not unique in that, I'm fairly certain I've seen legislation that explicitly references compliance with a BS or EN something or other. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's the way it is - and as BAS points out, means having to spend money (or visit a library) to find out what the law says.

Simon - imagine we had no wiring regulations whatsoever, and it was agreed that we should create some, and that they should be a national standard. Who do you think should pay for them to be developed?

Well that's a very good question, to which I don't have a short and simple answer Obviously from the POV of a user I'd like it to be paid for by someone else , but these days it's often not that simple

 

[JohnW2]

Well BS7671 is not unique in that ....

That may well be the case, but that doesn't alter the issue or argument...

I'm fairly certain I've seen legislation that explicitly references compliance with a BS or EN something or other.

We've discussed that before, and I'm not sure that you are necessarily correct. In general, there appears to be a reticence (which I find understandable) on the part of government to create laws which mandate compliance with something over which they, at least theoretically, have no control.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Obviously from the POV of a user I'd like it to be paid for by someone else , but these days it's often not that simple

It would not be beyond the wit of man to create a system whereby standards were free online, with hard copies available at pretty much just the cost of printing and distribution, but anybody who was required to, or wished to, comply with them for commercial reasons had to pay a licence fee to be allowed to claim compliance.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a bit like the concept of cheap/free copies/versions of 'not-for-commercial-use' software. The problem in all such cases is policing (and the cost of policing - who pays for that?) the "required to pay (when used commercially)" side of that coin.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Hence the licensing.

If you want, e.g., to mark your plugs as conforming to BS 1363 you pay a license. Use like that is a lot harder to hide than the use of software

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, there's no major problem when the claim is made by 'marking the product', but it's a whole different problem of 'policing' if the claims are being made by signing declarations which claim that work complies with BS7671.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not if there are legally mandated levels of competence (proper competence, not 'let's-prostitute-ourselves-with-5DW-DIs' "competence") and registration of electricians.

It's not a difficult concept - if you want to work as an electrician you have to be registered, and the fee you pay for that includes the licence for using BS 7671 in a commercial context.

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed, but I think his point (with which I have appreciable sympathy) is that BS 7671 is 'almost legislation' (in the sense that, for the vast majority of people concerned, it is the only 'set of regulations' available to them, compliance with which will effectively be taken as a demonstration of compliance with the {totally vague/brief} legislation - Part P of the Building Regs) - and that if it actually were legislation (rather than 'almost legislation') it would be available/accessible to everyone at no cost.

And see that there is a legal case running in the USA over just that.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/17/appeals_court_copyright_fair_use/

 

[JohnW2]

And see that there is a legal case running in the USA over just that. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/17/appeals_court_copyright_fair_use/

Interesting. I imagine that the crucial point is ...

... These include rules created and copyrighted by private standards organizations that get incorporated into federal law.

As previously said, if BS 7671 (or whatever) were "incorporated into UK law", then it would probably be available/accessible free-of-charge. ... but it isn't, so it isn't

I suspect the same might well be the case in the US (and would not justify legal challenges) in relation to Standards which are not "incorporated into federal law"..

Kind Regards, John

 

[mattylad]

Although it soon will be, there will be an electronic copy doing the rounds before too long. (hopefully)

 

[JohnW2]

Although it soon will be, there will be an electronic copy doing the rounds before too long. (hopefully)

A good few of us came across a 'final draft' of it on a (probably not intentionally!) publicly-accessible website. It's messy, since it contains all the crossings out etc. from the 17th, but I think the actual content remains true to what has been published.

Since it still appears to be there, if I can successfully PM you, I'll send you a link.

Kind Regards, John