Copyright, Paywalls, Building Codes, and Laws

[infinity]

It looks as though the courts will continue to rule against organizations that try to keep access to adopted laws behind a paywall. The NEC is used here as an example and Upcodes are mentioned in this article whereas they want to expand to free use of codes that are adopted into law. Could this be the beginning of the end of the NFPA being able to charge for access to the NEC? I think that the key element here is the right to copy. Yes the NFPA does allow you to "view only" the NEC for free but courts seem to be moving in a direction to where all types of access will eventually be free. This should be interesting.

Another court has ruled that copyright can’t be used to keep our laws behind a paywall. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that it is fair use to copy and disseminate building codes that have been incorporated into federal and state law, even though those codes are developed by private parties who claim copyright in them.

Another Court Rules Copyright Can’t Stop People From Reading and Speaking the Law

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that it is fair use to copy and disseminate building codes that have been incorporated into federal and state law, even though those codes are developed by private parties who claim copyright in them. The court...

www.eff.org

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If they can't charge, it is simply the end of the NFPA and every other organization that writes model codes. The money to write the model codes comes from the sales of those codes.

 

[brycenesbitt]

Yes the NFPA does allow you to "view only" the NEC for free but courts seem to be moving in a direction ....

Have you ever tried to use the free access NEC?
The reality is the NEC has become large enough that it's no longer very practical to use a paper copy, or the NEC free access which is a deliberately hobbled version of the paper document.

The potential downside of all this is figuring out how the NFPA and other organizations will sustain themselves. If this puts the standards deep into the big pockets of vendors, that could be worse than paying to read the NEC. If you're not paying for the product you are the product or something like that. Federal funding for development of model codes seems..... distant.... under the present administration.

(Note: locally I am under the California Electrical Code, so rarely bother to read the NEC directly except for code comments.
Unfortunately the sources for the CEC don't clearly distinguish differences. Other jurisdictions like the San Francisco Electrical Code do make it super clear when you're reading common code, and when you're on a local exception).

 

[hbiss]

They can charge the states or other jurisdictions who use the code. Probably won't be what they screw us out of but it's something. That will also make states think twice about adopting every new code when it comes out if they have to shell out a few mil each time. Thinking also that they provide free pdf download but charge for hard copies and the handbook which won't be available online.

And just think of the new and useless things manufacturers will come up with to support them.

-Hal

 

[hbiss]

Have you ever tried to use the free access NEC?
The reality is the NEC has become large enough that it's no longer very practical to use a paper copy, or the NEC free access which is a deliberately hobbled version of the paper document.

Amen to that. It's just a poor excuse to say that they provide free access.

The potential downside of all this is figuring out how the NFPA and other organizations will sustain themselves.

Probably should have figured that out long ago. It's always been a complaint that they are charging for something that has been adopted into law making it have to be available to the public free of charge. So, now when the s*** finally hits the fan they are scrambling.

As I said above, whoever adopts the code into law is their customer. Not the people who use it. Figure out how you are going to make that work. Trim the fat, more AI, less printed copies, fewer code cycles, maybe government funding.

Afterall, it is the NFPA and the National Electrical Code.

-Hal

 

[marmathsen]

It always seemed wrong to me that they put adopted codes behind pay walls. I'm trying to picture what the likely future looks like and what other industries we could look to for some insight.

It seems that the AHJ that adopts the codes should supply ALL of the adopted codes not just the local changes to the NEC. That would mean, at least in the interim, that the AHJ provides NFPA's content to us. Which would likely mean license fee increases to cover the cost, which seems fair I guess if we no longer need to purchase our own copies of the NEC.

Long term though, if NFPA's current business model is no longer viable, what does that look like? I don't have in-depth knowledge of other industries but it seems like having one organization dominating one industry's standards is not that common, right? What are models of other industries with similar life and property risk? What about automaking or aviation?

One future I'm envisioning is that the LEGAL REQUIREMENTS from the AHJ become much more stripped down and instead you have something like an optional "NFPA certified installation" sort of thing that equates to cheaper insurance, or is required by the architect, engineer, owner, etc but not by the government inspector.

If the NFPA completely got out of code development AND adopted codes were required to be made public, who else would do code development other than the government? Could there possibly be multiple publishers of electrical codes that create a competitive marketplace? Probably not since that would be a nightmare if your government changed publishers every few years.

Rob G
Seattle

 

[hbiss]

It seems that the AHJ that adopts the codes should supply ALL of the adopted codes not just the local changes to the NEC. That would mean, at least in the interim, that the AHJ provides NFPA's content to us. Which would likely mean license fee increases to cover the cost,

Why should an online PDF download cost anything? We are supposed to be supplied with the code at no cost. If you want a printed version they can charge you for the printing but that would be in no way what we pay now.

-Hal

 

[readydave8]

fewer code cycles

That'd be great

 

[infinity]

Thinking also that they provide free pdf download but charge for hard copies and the handbook which won't be available online.

IMO this should be the direction that the NFPA needs to go based on how they've gotten it wrong over several of the past code cycles. The handbook is a good example of what they should be allowed to sell because it is more than the adopted code language. A little history:

Around the 2005 NEC they used to give you a free PDF CD when you bought the hard copy of the code book.
Then they offered the PDF for sale costing more than the book even though a CD costs about 50 cents. Okay at least you had the PDF.
Then they said no more PDF's and now you have to pay if you want the same functionality (search, copy/paste) as the old PDF's.

I've happily purchased a PDF version of the NEC when it was no longer free but I loathe the current paywall model that they've adopted. I don't think that the courts are done with this issue yet as they seem to be against the current pay models for full access to adopted laws.

 

[going_commando]

What's annoying is that, as I understand it, got rid of the paid PDF download. They probably found out guys were sharing the PDF, even those getting the PDF had bought the physical code book. I work in a lot of rural areas without data service, so I keep a physical copy with me. I do miss somehow miraculously getting a PDF copy of the code book to go along with my paper copy though.

The stupidity is that the development cost is the same for the paper and PDF version. Its basically a money grab. If you buy the paper version you should get the PDF for free, since they are the exact same source document that you are paying for access to.

 

[steve66]

The price of both the NFPA code books and the handbooks have shot up in the last few years, and I think the free access is the direct cause.

The inability to print or to search through the free access really limits its usefulness for anyone that uses the code on a regular basis. So some people will still have to buy the books, or the paid online access.

 

[infinity]

The price of both the NFPA code books and the handbooks have shot up in the last few years, and I think the free access is the direct cause.

The inability to print or to search through the free access really limits its usefulness for anyone that uses the code on a regular basis. So some people will still have to buy the books, or the paid online access.

And if you think about the cost of the book versus the 3 years of online access there is a hugh difference in cost.

 

[zbang]

This was a few years ago but the principles are similar-

Supreme Court Says State Laws Aren’t Copyrightable

The ruling is a stark reminder of how many public records live behind revenue-generating paywalls.

slate.com

 

[marmathsen]

Why should an online PDF download cost anything? We are supposed to be supplied with the code at no cost. If you want a printed version they can charge you for the printing but that would be in no way what we pay now.

-Hal

I simply meant that if the model was such that an adopting government needed to pay NFPA some huge amount of money for a government license to be able to provide access to it's constituents, then that money needs to come from somewhere and I assumed it would be funded from licensing it permitting fees.

Rob G
Seattle

 

[retirede]

I simply meant that if the model was such that an adopting government needed to pay NFPA some huge amount of money for a government license to be able to provide access to it's constituents, then that money needs to come from somewhere and I assumed it would be funded from licensing it permitting fees.

Rob G
Seattle

More likely that governments would stop officially adopting new codes and simple edit the one(s) they already have in effect. Those edits may or may not resemble the NFPA’s!

 

[marmathsen]

More likely that governments would stop officially adopting new codes and simple edit the one(s) they already have in effect. Those edits may or may not resemble the NFPA’s!

Seems very possible. If so then over time the adopted codes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction could start to diverge which means our beloved code forum would become less useful if it doesn't implement location based categories (sub-forums?)

Rob G
Seattle

 

[tortuga]

There is some local history for this one in 2008, the State of Oregon here did a belly flop in the pool and attempted to assert copyright over the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). The state had to back peddle that it did not claim to own the law itself, it argued it had a proprietary interest in the "arrangement," the numbering, headings, and compilation, because public funds were used to organize it. This strategy backfired; public outrage, pressure and legal scrutiny quickly established that once a regulation is adopted as law, even by reference, it enters the realm of fair use. Oregon ultimately dropped the claim before it could set a formal court precedent.

Then around the same time same type of thing in Georgia, however, the state there chose to fight hard. That battle culminated in the a U.S. Supreme Court case Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., where the Court ruled that the law, including government created annotations and codes adopted by reference, cannot be copyrighted at all under the "government edicts doctrine."

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) like the NFPA frequently argue that "the sky will fall" if codes are free to the public. However, in the D.C. Circuit Court ruling ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org, the court noted that despite Carl Malamud posting these codes for free for over 15 years, groups like the NFPA failed to provide any evidence of financial harm. In fact, their revenues have steadily increased during that period.

The financial health of these organizations is further evidenced by executive compensation:

NFPA CEO: Total compensation is approximately $1.2 million per year.

ASTM CEO: Total compensation is approximately $950,000 per year.

As the courts have noted, "Public access is not a substitute for professional utility." While the average citizen should not have to pay to read the laws they must follow, professionals will continue to purchase premium, searchable versions for their specialized utility.

The NFPA , ASTM and the gang are currently fighting back through the Pro Codes Act, a bill designed to circumvent these court rulings and force joe public pay to read the NEC. The brand new legislation has gained significant bipartisan traction and has zero media coverage.

 

[hbiss]

The NFPA , ASTM and the gang are currently fighting back through the Pro Codes Act, a bill designed to circumvent these court rulings and force joe public pay to read the NEC. The brand new legislation has gained significant bipartisan traction and has zero media coverage.

If the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, what don't they understand? Bipartisan traction and zero media coverage: one guess who's behind this.

-Hal

 

[hbiss]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...act-or-what-if-the-law-came-behind-a-paywall/

-Hal

 

[jim dungar]

As the courts have noted, "Public access is not a substitute for professional utility." While the average citizen should not have to pay to read the laws they must follow, professionals will continue to purchase premium, searchable versions for their specialized utility.

This seems to be what NFPA is following.
Free access (without search capability) and an at cost professional access version.