Like ANSI, DIN is not a branch of government, but a self-regulated non-profit institute (an e.V.) Their FAQ describes their relationship to the government:
> What is the role of the government or the European Commission in standardization?
> Standardization is a form of economic self-regulation, relieving the state of the responsibility for developing detailed technical specifications while ensuring that a standard reflects the state of technology. Because the state has an interest in standardization, particularly in the occupational safety and health sectors, it funds DIN projects in sectors which are in the public interest.
The EU has created several safety laws that each countries must follow. The laws then in turn reference proprietary written standards by DIN, which people need to buy in order to actually follow and understand the law.
Yes, and no. DIN basically takes European and international norms and translates them so that they conform to the German law and can thus be used in Germany. This is not just a matter of simple translation but of adaptation since all documents issued by the European Union are published in all languages of the member states anyway. Companies could of course just take the European norms and implement them by themselves, but since adapting these norms to German law is complicated they choose to buy a certified DIN report which provides them legal security. Now you can of course argue if this service should be provided for free or not. On their website, DIN points out a few reasons why they charge money for their reports:
Thanks, but the more I read about this, the more I start to dislike it.
Just because its optional doesn't make it less of an secret law. It simply mean that the secret law can be ignored, and where those with privileged access can gain an market advantage.
Either the law makers is in fault here for making part of the law secret, or DIN should loose their copyright to the standard. You can not have laws with open and secret parts, or you creates a law enforced unfair market.
If DIN has proprietary ownership of the optional part of the law, DIN can then at their choice exclude companies at will. After all, proprietary ownership means the right to not sell a license to companies of your choice. This is clearly incompatible with a fair and free market.
In my view, the law should be rewritten so the standard is not included there. If the market want to make the standard an industry practice, or lawyers want to view it as the defined compliance to the law, then thats fine. That would mean that a competing standard writing body (or lawyer firm) could come up with a new standard, and compete in an fair and free market with the first one. As it is now, no such competition can happen since the standard is written into the actually law as a way to optional be in compliance. Thats an clear unfair advantage, and facilitates antitrust.
Actually, the fee to get access to the standard is fairly reasonable. We're talking roundabout 100 euros here - this is in no way an unfair advantage or worthy of an antitrust case. The money that standard will cost you is not the fee, but reading and understanding piles of papers and then getting certified that you're in compliance.
And when DIN refuses to let you buy their proprietary standard for $100 because it would compete with their businesses interest, I wonder how high the cost is then.
from that link: "Throughout Germany there are standards "repositories", or libraries, where the public can view standards for free. For more information go to
http://www.beuth.de/de/rubrik/auslegestellen (German only)"
Anyone can go into one of those libraries listed here and have a look into the Standard Documents, most commonly with a desktop computer connected over the internet to access the online database.
It's still free, just not free as in free on the internet.
