Since it's unlikely that taxpayers will accept paying for all of this stuff, the likely outcome is that specific code references will be removed from the law and replaced with an insurance requirement. And insurers are going to require the ferris wheel or elevator or boiler to comply with the same code that used to be in the law.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1150_7m58.pdf
Only on hackernews would you read a comment saying that its fine for some corporation to hold the copyright on the law of the land.
How happy would you be if you were an engineer who developed a set of equations around some dangerous piece of equipment and your consulting business was built around selling your expertise. Then the state government comes along and says "nice work, now it's the law".
I don't know how you get around the insurance backdoor that I mentioned. Any ideas?
Edit: Looking at the link you posted, that seems to be specifically about annotations to the law. How does it cover codes incorporated by reference? It might be right there and I'm not seeing it. I'm not used to reading these types of materials.
Personally, I'd be ecstatic if my work could have such a wide reaching impact as that
Even without copyright protection the special interest groups will continue writing model code exactly as they were except that member corps might have to kick in a bit more money now that ordinary citizens won’t be subsidizing their efforts to manipulate the democratic process.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/franchise-tax-bo...
Sovereign immunity means you can’t sue a state in its own courts, either, except in the ways it has agreed to be suable, which tend to be a small subset of those reasons for which any other party would be.
That doesn't apply to FOIA cases as the law gives a statutory right to sue.
The ruling does apply to regulations, it doesn't apply to material referenced in regulations (either directly or indirectly), which a whole lot of copyrighted things are.
(For an example of indirect reference, the HIPAA transactions and code sets rule regulations adopt CMS’s Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System as a standard code set for certain purposes. Great, as it's a federal government product, and therefore free from copyright burdens.
Except that the “Level 1 codes” in the HCPCS are defined by reference as the AMA’s Current Procedure Terminology codes, and the definition of that code set is under copyright and not freely available.
It maybe makes sense for esoteric things but not at all for common things (like the building and electrical codes covering all houses.
Edit: Sometimes private organizations did write the codes for their members and later the government notices that's what everybody is using and it's working, so make it the law of the land.
Nobody really disagrees with that. Most of the codes are available in paper form in libraries.
Organizations like the ASME (https://www.asme.org/) write the codes and they do a pretty good job.
"America" is a loosely-coupled minimum-viable veneer over private capital. As built, extraction and concentration of value is the primary purpose of the system. The roots of this settler-colony are still visible.
It's similar for electrical and structural codes: when I'm occupying a building (not just living or owning, but working or shopping too), I can trust that it meets certain standards as set by law. These things are codified by law to be minimum standards, not about making people liable to produce their own, as the past has been shown many times, there will always be people who will knowingly put money over the lives of people (e.g. via fake or otherwise unscrupulous insurance companies in this case). Now, I don't mean that insurance shouldn't or can't be a part of the "system", just that the "standard" shouldn't be whatever someone will insure.
Also, I'm not even advocating that copyright should be assigned to the government, just that access to the basic standards be free in perpetuity. This would prevent people from selling works composed primarily of the standard, but allow the basic standard to be freely accessible. I believe this would also cover annotated guides unless the annotations make up more of the work than the original standard does? The original organization still has the sole ability to sell authoritative supplementary and annotated materials. As long as the basic standard could reasonably be followed without said materials:
* a bad situation would be the standard saying to use the "appropriate wire gauge for the situation" but only give the appropriate guage in supplimentry material, and a
* good example would be the standard stating that "in a plenum, wire meeting «such and such» rating must be used", and as long as "«such and such» rating" is something that could reasonably be found on the wire itself then fine, even if the supplimentry materials make it easier to identify such cabling or find the most appropriate/cost effective type for a given situation, as long as any cable with the rating would be safe.
Professionals, especially if egged on by their insurance companies, would most likely purchase the authoritative materials. On the other hand general consumers doing work for themselves, could reference library copies or cheaper, non-authoritative references. Much as it is now for many things like major electrical and structural changes, inspections need to done by certified individuals, who require insurance, and who are probably only insurable if they have their own access to the standards and supplementary materials.
A similar situations that exist current is the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways". It is published by the as a free pdf by the Federal Highway Administration, but only a few partnered corporation are allowed to sell print copies. I cannot find a definitive answer as to why, but in the early 1970s the FHWA became the owner and began publishing it, but before that it was a joint consortium of private entites most of who are still involved in its development.
While discussing transportation, AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" (a.k.a. the "Green Book") contains guidance and standards. There are some documents published by the FHWA that come close to my good example above, but some fall into my bad example, where it says to consider this, but then gives not minimum design standards. So, in general that is a mixed bag, and could beuch better. However, I still think that both are illustrative that a system where the basics are available, but other commentary is paid.
There are other, transitionary, options for current standards even if, for instance, all new ones must be freely available. For instance, it could be mandated that any standard that is currently proprietary, but required, must be held in some form at the county or local level in a manner accessible to the general public. The Green Book referenced earlier, could have to have a reference copy be available at a library in the county or a county office building open to the public. Similar to the electrical code, the general public doesn't need to have this constantly available to justify the money and storage space, but may have specific questions they want to look up, or verify for themselves.
Citizens have a right to know what the law is. That doesn't mean that the government can't work with technical organizations to ensure that while basic access is free, said organizations can still profit from the work they put in to create said standard.
It gets worse. The codes are regularly changed in ways I've heard numerous experienced journeymen describe as being baffling, and it's fairly obvious that the changes happen to force everyone to buy a copy of the new edition.
Lot of the trades are just rotten to the core. For example, master electricians are almost completely exempt from continuing education/examination requirements that non-master-level electricians have to endure. New code comes out, all the regulars have to pass an exam about it. But the ME? He gets to flip open his wallet and sneer, "Master-electrician-license-immunnnniiittyyyyyy!"
Your average 25 year old electrician is probably far more up to speed on current standards than the 50 year old ME people are more likely to give work to because of "experience."
The government should not adopt anything as law that is not publically accessible, the law absolutely has to open access to all persons if you are expected to follow it.
If the public does not want to fund the creation of building codes, then the building codes need to be done away with, or simplified to the point where the public will be willing to fund there
The building codes, like most standards, are filled with all kinds of things that have nothing to do with safety which the the sole area the government should be concerned with.
Government should have a safety code, then let the market compete for builders that want to voluntarily adopt the other standards
While building codes sometimes get implemented overly slavishly with old retrofits, in general requiring contractors/builders to meet minimum industry best practices is a good thing given that otherwise it's even more caveat emptor than it already is.
And, of course, any subsequent buyer has very little idea what standards the house was built to. (Which they may not anyway with older houses but at least codes are a start.)
For insulation, no I do not believe there should be a government enforced standard, and analog to the IT world, we have all kinds of "standards" almost none of them enforced by law. Companies advertise they are complaint with standard X, or Y because it advantageous for them to do so
Builders of home could to the same, insurers of home could require it in order to insure a home, or provide discounts if a home is compliant with X standard, mortgage companies could require it, or factor it in to the appraisals.
There are all kinds of market based, none government methods to apply standards
Government action, which you must remember is back by the threat of violence, should be reserved for things that directly impact safety
>>any subsequent buyer has very little idea what standards the house was built to.
Here I do see a role for government, in disclosure laws, and enforcement of fraud if a seller claim a home was built to X standard and it was not
Even though you aren't likely to build a petroleum distillation column in your apartment, you don't mind helping to pay for the ongoing R&D involved in producing the engineering codes governing that equipment? For esoteric stuff like that, I kind of like the user-fee model. If we all pay, it feels like another subsidy to (in this case) oil and gas companies.
Not everything in life needs to revolve around an absolute maximization of personal gain.
I'm stealing this if you don't mind. A very succinct way of putting a concept I've failed to explain before.