Bookmarking my security protected IEC 60601-1 .pdf file
- Thread starter Anthony
- Start date
pziemlewicz
Involved In Discussions
I've not found a good way to do this. My license came with the ability to print one hardcopy, so I have that printed/tabbed in a binder. Okay if you're in the office, but annoying during travel.
Some years ago I got a .pdf standard online. It had the 1 print restriction. The printer jammed and the print failed. I forget where I bought it, but they told me too bad for me. I do remember I found a copy which was unprotected.
From that point, I always ordered a paper copy (or did a print of the .pdf) and scanned the print copy making my own unprotected .pdf which I could markup or whatever.
EDIT ADD: If you have a scanner, test scan some pages to test the .pdf it makes. If I remember correctly the scanner I had way back when made a great .pdf but it wasn't Searchable, so some standards I bought I did an OCR on, cleaned it up, and had a searchable document.
From that point, I always ordered a paper copy (or did a print of the .pdf) and scanned the print copy making my own unprotected .pdf which I could markup or whatever.
EDIT ADD: If you have a scanner, test scan some pages to test the .pdf it makes. If I remember correctly the scanner I had way back when made a great .pdf but it wasn't Searchable, so some standards I bought I did an OCR on, cleaned it up, and had a searchable document.
Last edited:
New on on me. Have you tried to see if the output is searchable? It has been a while, but that was an important criteria for me back then.
It strips the security and it's searchable.
My take: Standards makers and sellers are just irritating customers, especially considering the cost of standards. I did think about this thread and its content. And I have never been shy about my personal negative views of copyrights (in legislation mainly pushed by Disney) to a ridiculous level.
I decided to allow this discussion based upon the following: The specific scenario is one where the person is not interested in reselling, sharing or profiting from the document. The only intent, as far as I can see, is for standard sellers to piss people off. It is my opinion that for any of the standards seller(s) to restrict a document in such a way as to hobble it by putting a "security" feature as simple as to block "bookmarking" or otherwise marking up their personal copy of a standard is stupid. It drives people to find ways around such "security" "features" (is bookmarking such a document security related?).
Here at Elsmar.com we do watch for posting of copyrighted documents. And we delete them when we identify one.
And we have discussed copyright issues quite a few times: E.g.: Copyright - Including Copyrighted Material from other Websites or Sources in Posts
We also have a copyright Policy.
I decided to allow this discussion based upon the following: The specific scenario is one where the person is not interested in reselling, sharing or profiting from the document. The only intent, as far as I can see, is for standard sellers to piss people off. It is my opinion that for any of the standards seller(s) to restrict a document in such a way as to hobble it by putting a "security" feature as simple as to block "bookmarking" or otherwise marking up their personal copy of a standard is stupid. It drives people to find ways around such "security" "features" (is bookmarking such a document security related?).
Here at Elsmar.com we do watch for posting of copyrighted documents. And we delete them when we identify one.
And we have discussed copyright issues quite a few times: E.g.: Copyright - Including Copyrighted Material from other Websites or Sources in Posts
We also have a copyright Policy.
My take: Standards makers and sellers are just irritating customers, especially considering the cost of standards. I did think about this thread and its content. And I have never been shy about my personal negative views of copyrights (in legislation mainly pushed by Disney) to a ridiculous level.
I decided to allow this discussion based upon the following: The specific scenario is one where the person is not interested in reselling, sharing or profiting from the document. The only intent, as far as I can see, is for standard sellers to piss people off. It is my opinion that for any of the standards seller(s) to restrict a document in such a way as to hobble it by putting a "security" feature as simple as to block "bookmarking" or otherwise marking up their personal copy of a standard is stupid. It drives people to find ways around such "security" "features" (is bookmarking such a document security related?).
Here at Elsmar.com we do watch for posting of copyrighted documents. And we delete them when we identify one.
And we have discussed copyright issues quite a few times: E.g.: Copyright - Including Copyrighted Material from other Websites or Sources in Posts
We also have a copyright Policy.
I don't have a problem with the discussion, I just wanted to make it clear (as I did not know if the OP was aware) that bypassing security is a copyright violation.
I agree with Marc to an extent. Sometimes it's obvious that that the restriction has nothing to do with copyright and is just a way to push customers towards spending more.
My own example: I purchased the single-user version of an ISO standard. Doing a gap analysis for a client, I wanted to copy single sentences from the standard, and paste them in a Word document (rather than typing them) - the gap analysis report. Then I discovered that the copy function was disabled. I contacted the seller and was informed that this is intentional; however, they told me, if I bought a multi-user version (where one can choose the number of licenses, which can be as low as 2) I wouldn't have this limitation. I can see how copy-pasting may be seen as a copyright breach under specific circumstances (definitely not all and any circumstances), but how is that different when you purchase 2 licenses rather than 1?...
My own example: I purchased the single-user version of an ISO standard. Doing a gap analysis for a client, I wanted to copy single sentences from the standard, and paste them in a Word document (rather than typing them) - the gap analysis report. Then I discovered that the copy function was disabled. I contacted the seller and was informed that this is intentional; however, they told me, if I bought a multi-user version (where one can choose the number of licenses, which can be as low as 2) I wouldn't have this limitation. I can see how copy-pasting may be seen as a copyright breach under specific circumstances (definitely not all and any circumstances), but how is that different when you purchase 2 licenses rather than 1?...
Similar threads
