[zentiggr]

I'll take the countervailing opinion here: regardless what the usual expectations of the standards organization might be, the situation changes as soon as it's included as legal requirements.

At soon as its inclusion in law is effective, their ability to collect fees or in any way restrict access is void. The referenced version, from that point forward, needs to be publicly accessible at no charge for as long as it is legally binding.

If they don't want to relinquish financial control, don't make it part of the public record or legally binding. QED.

[TallGuyShort]

I would agree, but only if the copyright holder is an active participant in making their standards legally binding, otherwise some city council somewhere is just unilaterally eliminating their copyright, which they have no right to do IMO. I mean if the standards bodies are pushing for their standards to become laws because that's an amazing business model, then I agree they should be waiving license fees as part of that push, but the buck stops with the government on that IMO. It shouldn't just be assumed or permitted. Don't have time to go dig myself right now to see if that's what's happening.

[nybble41]

The end result is the same either way: The law, including all required references, must be available to the public in a free, non-discriminatory, and modern form (i.e. on the Internet, not a single paper copy accessible only in the basement of the state capitol building behind a door marked "beware of leopard") before it can be enforced. That means the state must find a way to make the law available to the public before it takes effect, and standards organizations likewise must agree to allow public access before their standards can be incorporated into the law. The federal government can, of course, revoke the copyright on a standard to achieve that result if permission is not forthcoming—despite the name it's merely an artificial privilege, not a natural right, and as such ought to be revoked the moment it fails to serve its intended purpose of benefiting the public.

[rebuilder]

What is your interpretation of the law based on?

[zentiggr]

I wasn't trying to interpret existing law, I was expressing my opinion on how the process _should_ work.

No one should be denied access to legal documentation that they could be held liable for compliance/non-compliance.

I'd argue even further and say that if any portion of the law or any supporting documentation is not fully accessible at any time, there should be no liability for non-compliance.

[posterboy]

While I understand your approach, taking itvto the extreme it sounds to the lawmaker a little bit like: I didn't wear a helmet, you have any whatbthese things cost? I'm not going to get my car checked, unless you pay for it (it's my understanding frequent check-ups are not in fact mandatory in the US anyway). I didn't pay for this car, why would I?

I'm joking of course. What was the problem, MTA maps? Yeah, those are publicly accessable.