Maker Pro
Maker Pro

NEC

T

Thomas Avery

Jan 1, 1970
0
I was asked by a friend who has a small electrical firm to check a DVD for
him. It contained the entire 2008 NEC and was not copy protected. It was
completely accurate as to content. He purchased it for $20 from a kid who
attends high school. I did quite a bit of snooping and found that 3 kids
from the high school are pretty good at stripping copy protection from
software. They actually check out software from the library, strip
protection, and make copies. One has a game collection that would be envied
by Bill Gates.
I have always heard that if there is someone smart enough to add copy
protection, then there is also someone smart enough to circumvent it.
 
| I was asked by a friend who has a small electrical firm to check a DVD for
| him. It contained the entire 2008 NEC and was not copy protected. It was
| completely accurate as to content. He purchased it for $20 from a kid who
| attends high school. I did quite a bit of snooping and found that 3 kids
| from the high school are pretty good at stripping copy protection from
| software. They actually check out software from the library, strip
| protection, and make copies. One has a game collection that would be envied
| by Bill Gates.
| I have always heard that if there is someone smart enough to add copy
| protection, then there is also someone smart enough to circumvent it.

It's a lot easier to copy protect stuff over at the CIA and NSA headquarters
(and you can assume those guys know exactly what they are doing) that you are
never, ever, going to be allowed to see, or even know exists, than it is to
copy protect stuff that you are supposed to be able to see. If you can see
it, you can copy it. Any middle-ages era monk knows that. It's just a matter
of how nuch they want to trade ease of intended viewing to achieve difficulty
in unintended copying.
 
T

Thomas Avery

Jan 1, 1970
0
ARLOWE said:
After serious thinking Gerald Newton wrote :

I can disable any secuity feature in a PDF document.
You would be suprised how clever you can become when you forget your own
password to password protected documents.

experience talking.
Wasn't there a ruling by the 5th District Federal Court that said that if a
city, county, etc incorporated the NEC by reference into their ordinances
that there could be no charge for access to the ordinances?
 
|
| |> After serious thinking Gerald Newton wrote :
|>>> I was asked by a friend who has a small electrical firm to check a DVD
|>>> for
|>>> him. It contained the entire 2008 NEC and was not copy protected. It was
|>>> completely accurate as to content. He purchased it for $20 from a kid
|>>> who
|>>> attends high school. I did quite a bit of snooping and found that 3 kids
|>>> from the high school are pretty good at stripping copy protection from
|>>> software. They actually check out software from the library, strip
|>>> protection, and make copies. One has a game collection that would be
|>>> envied
|>>> by Bill Gates.
|>>> I have always heard that if there is someone smart enough to add copy
|>>> protection, then there is also someone smart enough to circumvent it.
|>>
|>> The 2005 NEC was on CD was a protected PDF file and could easily be
|>> hacked using a $19 PDF ripper made in Russia as I recall. The 2008
|>> NEC on CD is not so easily done since it is in a different format.
|>> The NFPA is constantly trying to catch these people.
|>
|> I can disable any secuity feature in a PDF document.
|> You would be suprised how clever you can become when you forget your own
|> password to password protected documents.
|>
|> experience talking.
|>
|>
| Wasn't there a ruling by the 5th District Federal Court that said that if a
| city, county, etc incorporated the NEC by reference into their ordinances
| that there could be no charge for access to the ordinances?

I don't know if this was done. I do know it has been tried and failed in
some places.

The whole idea here is that there is substantial cost in developing this kind
of technical regulation. This is beyond the capability of most juridictions
to do it on their own at anywhere near the level of thoroughness the NFPA does
it now. There's also value in a national scope of consistency. If such a
ruling (especially if expanded to all districts or upheld by SCOTUS) were in
effect, it would mean that NFPA's source of funding to do the research would
be in jeopardy. The only alternative would be to charge jurisdictions for
referencing the NEC, which would be very hard to do for something anyone can
freely copy.

A proper ruling would require that the pricing be reasonable. It should be
such that the cost of publishing, printing, and distribution is covered, and
leave enough so that the "profits" cover the NFPA costs to keep the NEC up
to date on an ongoing basis. Fair use should be provided for, as well, which
should allow people discussing the issue in general. However, quoting the
NEC as consulting or engineering work product should be limited, since this
is a case of commercial gain from copying. OTOH, NFPA should provide for a
reasonable work product licensing scheme. AHJ's should not need to quote the
NEC for inspection purpose. They can simply cite the number of the paragraph(s)
that apply and possibly reference how the code applies to the inspected work.
But even if an AHJ copies the applicable paragraph for a red tag, I don't see
that as a point of commercial gain.

One fair use I do think is appropriate is for libraries to make legal copies
available for home-owner do-it-yourself people to read. Better they have an
easy means to read it than not.
 
D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Thomas said:
Wasn't there a ruling by the 5th District Federal Court that said
that if a city, county, etc incorporated the NEC by reference into
their ordinances that there could be no charge for access to the
ordinances?

I remember hearing this as well. But 'access' can simply mean they have a
paper copy in the office they will let you read while standing at the
counter. Not the most helpful form of 'access'.

daestrom
 
Top