access and pricing of Australian Standards

[Chris Jones]

If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of
Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until
29/7/2019:
https://www.standards.org.au/news/help-shape-the-future-standards-australia

Here is some background:
https://myosh.com/blog/2018/12/03/australian-standards-the-unfair-exchange/

I went to one of the "public consultations" about distribution (and so
price) of Australian Standards.

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them. He used the example of Diesel engines for
boats - the public wouldn't understand how an engine works so they
shouldn't be reading the standards about them.

Also he used the metaphor that standards are "tools of trade", "like a
surgeon's scalpel" and should not be available to the public because
just being able to read the electrical or gasfitting rules would
"embolden" people to do wiring and gasfitting work without a license.
Fortunately the fellow from Standards Australia does not influence
distribution of scalpels - I find that a Swann-Morton handle with a 10A
blade, available at any good artists' shop, is very handy for modifying
prototype circuit boards. And in spite of posessing this marvel of
sharpness, it never occurred to me to test my beginner's luck and have a
go at some amateur surgery.

(By the same logic, we could fix the problem of people driving cars
without a license, by putting the road rules behind a very expensive
paywall, so people without a license don't get "emboldened" to drive cars.)

The WA parliament's delegated legislation committee said:
"We believe that universal free access to Australian Standards should be
a right enjoyed by the Australian people, by businesses, by governments,
by representative groups and by academic institutions.”
https://t.co/xXtzpVo0Il
If you look up the interview transcripts from that investigation they
are quite revealing also.

I'm not sure that putting in a submission will have much effect, but at
least that part of their website is free of charge!

 

[Computer Nerd Kev]

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of
Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until
29/7/2019:
https://www.standards.org.au/news/help-shape-the-future-standards-australia

Here is some background:
https://myosh.com/blog/2018/12/03/australian-standards-the-unfair-exchange/

Wow, that contract was made just as it was becoming possible to
distribute online as PDFs, and thereby cut out the role of the
distributor in the first place. They've had fifteen years of raking
it in, granting them another five would have to be insanity.

I went to one of the "public consultations" about distribution (and so
price) of Australian Standards.

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them. He used the example of Diesel engines for
boats - the public wouldn't understand how an engine works so they
shouldn't be reading the standards about them.

Also he used the metaphor that standards are "tools of trade", "like a
surgeon's scalpel" and should not be available to the public because
just being able to read the electrical or gasfitting rules would
"embolden" people to do wiring and gasfitting work without a license.

Hmm yes, insanity.

Still at least the blog post suggests that Standards Australia are
inclined towards breaking the monopoly on distribution, so I guess
the general manager was commenting on the option of allowing free
downloads. Not that his argument makes any sense there either,
especially given what other information can be found for free on the
internet (and before that in, libraries).

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

 

[Chris Jones]

On 21/07/2019 12:16, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of
Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until
29/7/2019:
https://www.standards.org.au/news/help-shape-the-future-standards-australia

Here is some background:
https://myosh.com/blog/2018/12/03/australian-standards-the-unfair-exchange/

Wow, that contract was made just as it was becoming possible to
distribute online as PDFs, and thereby cut out the role of the
distributor in the first place. They've had fifteen years of raking
it in,

I don't think the deal with SAI Global was a good idea, but being such
an obviously profitable arrangement for SAI Global, it did at least
allow Standards Australia to sell SAI Global for a lot of money, so that
Standards Australia was able to acquire quite a lot of investment
assets. According to its 2018 annual review, gets most of its income
from those investments. It only got 18% from royalties, and the WA
parliament suggested replacing that with government funding since the
government already pays more than that to read the standards.
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/3ce1dfd4bf146a27482580a4001d4650/$FILE/A39%20S1%2020160623%20p4018a-4019a.pdf

> ... granting them another five would have to be insanity.
There was some legal dispute about the 5 year extension, but it is my
understanding that the extension is going ahead because SAI Global was
entitled to choose to do that, however it is now a non-exclusive deal,
so Techstreet is also distributing the documents. I think Standards
Australia might be getting a higher percentage of the royalties than for
the first 15 years. It is not clear to me that there will be any price
reduction for users though. The impression that I got at the public
consultation is that Standards Australia was planning on getting more
royalties, and being a not-for-profit, it would presumably then have to
dispose of that extra money somehow. I'm not sure that users will see
any benefit. I'm going to make my suggestions anyway though.

 

[keithr0]

On 7/21/2019 1:25 AM, Chris Jones wrote:

If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of
Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until
29/7/2019:
https://www.standards.org.au/news/help-shape-the-future-standards-australia

Here is some background:
https://myosh.com/blog/2018/12/03/australian-standards-the-unfair-exchange/

I went to one of the "public consultations" about distribution (and so
price) of Australian Standards.

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.  He used the example of Diesel engines for
boats - the public wouldn't understand how an engine works so they
shouldn't be reading the standards about them.

Also he used the metaphor that standards are "tools of trade", "like a
surgeon's scalpel" and should not be available to the public because
just being able to read the electrical or gasfitting rules would
"embolden" people to do wiring and gasfitting work without a license.
Fortunately the fellow from Standards Australia does not influence
distribution of scalpels - I find that a Swann-Morton handle with a 10A
blade, available at any good artists' shop, is very handy for modifying
prototype circuit boards. And in spite of posessing this marvel of
sharpness, it never occurred to me to test my beginner's luck and have a
go at some amateur surgery.

(By the same logic, we could fix the problem of people driving cars
without a license, by putting the road rules behind a very expensive
paywall, so people without a license don't get "emboldened" to drive cars.)

The WA parliament's delegated legislation committee said:
"We believe that universal free access to Australian Standards should be
a right enjoyed by the Australian people, by businesses, by governments,
by representative groups and by academic institutions.”
https://t.co/xXtzpVo0Il
If you look up the interview transcripts from that investigation they
are quite revealing also.

I'm not sure that putting in a submission will have much effect, but at
least that part of their website is free of charge!

All standards should be freely available online just as ANSI standards are.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 21/7/19 1:25 am, Chris Jones wrote:

If you are interested in the distribution and therefore pricing of
Australian Standards, you can comment on a discussion paper here, until
29/7/2019:
https://www.standards.org.au/news/help-shape-the-future-standards-australia

I have read the discussion paper, and it's not actually about user
access or pricing. It's about the new ability of Standards Australia to
find ways to monetize the standards they control, and monetize the data
of the users and usage of the standards. They want to sub-license the
distribution of standards to a significant number of different
institutions, but still exercise control over those distributors.

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea or will decrease prices is an idiot.

Meanwhile, we have any number of State and Federal laws and regulations
that mandate compliance with a standard, which usually cost $500 or more
for a single-user license. Product safety standards, so electronics
designers don't kill babies by using the wrong batteries? You have to
pay, if you should have the audacity to want to actually create something.

Meanwhile if the government itself fails to comply with international
standards (such as some non-compliant and unsafe signage that is
prevalent along the Hume Freeway), you can't even check or report the
non-compliance without quoting chapter and verse. The price for the road
signage standard? >$500 - and that's if you get the right one.

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should
get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour
cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.

Who will save us from these pesky bureaucrats and idiot law-makers?

The WA parliament's delegated legislation committee said:
"We believe that universal free access to Australian Standards should be
a right enjoyed by the Australian people, by businesses, by governments,
by representative groups and by academic institutions.”
https://t.co/xXtzpVo0Il
If you look up the interview transcripts from that investigation they
are quite revealing also.

I'm not sure that putting in a submission will have much effect, but at
least that part of their website is free of charge!

By all means put in a submission, but we also need to lobby our
parliamentarians to set in place a principle that they cannot enshrine
any law or regulation which requires adherence to any information that
is not freely available in full from an authoritative or government-run
web-site, or as paper copies that are browsable for free in a library.

Ignorance of the law *is* an excuse, if access to the law requires
payment. Anything else is simply unfair.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath wrote:

A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should
get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour
cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.

** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

Who will save us from these pesky bureaucrats and idiot law-makers?

** Not you, that's for sure.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Ignorance of the law *is* an excuse, if access to the law requires
payment. Anything else is simply unfair.

** Until the internet came along, even copies of the Criminal law were only obtainable from a couple of places in Sydney for payment - the Government Printers in Ultimo or the Commonwealth Bookshop in Circular Quay.

It has very long been the case that important information that governs our lives is either not readily available, has to be paid for or is impossible to find cos folk are keeping it secret.

IME the so called " freedom of information " laws are a sham, anything that might annoy or embarrass is redacted, you get nothing but junk and you have to pay for that too.

A rather pissed off young man once said to me that the world does not run on the truth, it runs on lies and bullshit.




..... Phil

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/7/19 9:20 am, Phil Allison wrote:

Clifford Heath wrote:
A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should
get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour
cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.

** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to
justify restricting access to the full versions.

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should
get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour
cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.


** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to
justify restricting access to the full versions.

** See, you just misread the intention of MY post - as per usual.

FYI: " simplified versions" of standards, just like simplified versions of laws are a fool's pipe dream - utterly unworkable.

It is inherent in the nature of standards and laws that they are written for the use of folk with the necessary expertise. They become dangerous in the hands of the great unwashed.



..... Phil

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/7/19 2:24 pm, Phil Allison wrote:

Clifford Heath wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
A General Manager from Standards Australia told us that (paraphrased)
there's no point allowing the public to access standards, because they
wouldn't understand them.

The same comment is made in the discussion paper. We the sheeple should
get dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour
cartoons suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations.


** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to
justify restricting access to the full versions.


** See, you just misread the intention of MY post - as per usual.

FYI: " simplified versions" of standards, just like simplified versions of laws are a fool's pipe dream - utterly unworkable.

I did not misinterpret you. The simplified documents are not intended as
replacements for the standards. Read section 6.3 of this to see what I
was referring to:

<https://www.standards.org.au/getmedia/aabf7d12-2a11-4700-822b-9a587e97585b/SA-Distribution-discussion-paper.pdf.aspx>

"
Members of the public may seek to access information regarding Consumer
Interest Standards (e.g. information regarding the standards applicable
to baby dummies, cots or buildings).

The information consumers require regarding Consumer Interest Standards
may be better presented as an easy to understand explanatory guide,
rather than the presentation of technical details required for
manufacturers. This type of access avoids making highly technical
documents easily available to non-technical people who may not
be qualified or able to use the content appropriately.

SA is willing to consider providing appropriate standards content to
selected third parties to develop ‘plain English’ guides to Consumer
Interest Standards. The consumer guides would be limited to information
useful for consumers as opposed to a manufacturer or tradesperson.
"

I remain implacably opposed to excessive dumbing-down of the standards
to the lowest level. It is open to (and has resulted in) all kinds of
abuse. Just see what's happening with the food health ratings recently!
Any simplified guide must remain transparent, sufficient, and true to
the full standard, but that's not what has happened - it's being
manipulated instead.

> It is inherent in the nature of standards and laws that they are written for the use of folk with the necessary expertise. They become dangerous in the hands of the great unwashed.

They can, but the danger is less than the additional safety from the
more intelligent among the "great unwashed" having access, and being
able to warn the sheeple when they're being dudded.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath the Chirping Cricket wrote:

** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.

IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to
justify restricting access to the full versions.


** See, you just misread the intention of MY post - as per usual.

FYI: " simplified versions" of standards, just like simplified versions of laws are a fool's pipe dream - utterly unworkable.

I did not misinterpret you.

** FFS dickwad - I fucking know when I have been misinterpreted.



> The simplified documents ...

** I could not care less about, my post made no reference to any such thing..

It is inherent in the nature of standards and laws that they are written for the use of folk with the necessary expertise. They become dangerous in the hands of the great unwashed.



They can, but the danger is less than the additional safety from the
more intelligent among the "great unwashed" having access, and being
able to warn the sheeple when they're being dudded.

** Massively naĂŻve BULLSHIT !!!

You just HAVE to be a rabid Green Party member - right ?



...... Phil






> Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 23/7/19 3:20 pm, Phil Allison wrote:

Clifford Heath the Chirping Cricket wrote:
** That is not fair comment - Standards are written in legalese and nearly incomprehensible unless you read them ten times. Even then, you need to read all the related ones to get the context. This is clearly a task only for the expert and seriously dedicated types.
IME it is extremely easy to misinterpret a Standard and wind up believing it bans something it does not or permits something it does not.

Try figuring out ( by reading one standard) if step down auto-transformers for use with 230VAC supply are banned from sale, or not.

I'm not opposed to simplified versions. I'm opposed to using them to
justify restricting access to the full versions.
** See, you just misread the intention of MY post - as per usual.

FYI: " simplified versions" of standards, just like simplified versions of laws are a fool's pipe dream - utterly unworkable.

I did not misinterpret you.
** FFS dickwad - I fucking know when I have been misinterpreted.
The simplified documents ...
** I could not care less about, my post made no reference to any such thing.

You replied to *my* comment saying "We the sheeple should get
dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour cartoons
suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations"

Forgive me for not realising that it was *you* trying to change the
subject. Exactly what you most vehemently complain about other people
doing to you. Sad little git!

 

[Phil Allison]

Clifford Heath Raving Nut Case wrote:

I did not misinterpret you.
** FFS dickwad - I fucking know when I have been misinterpreted.
The simplified documents ...
** I could not care less about, my post made no reference to any such thing.

You replied to *my* comment saying "We the sheeple should get
dumbed-down user-friendly versions of them, with nice colour cartoons
suitable to our kinder-garten comprehension and educations"

** I fucking did NOT !!

I treated it as a joke, not worthy of any reply.

Forgive me for not realising that it was *you* trying to change the
subject.

** You can ask God for forgiveness - but not me.

Piss off you ridiculous fool.



..... Phil