3 ms·

UpCodes cofounder here. Fair point, and we definitely don't want to steal any credit from people like Carl Malamud and so many others who have devoted over a

UpCodes cofounder here. Fair point, and we definitely don't want to steal any credit from people like Carl Malamud and so many others who have devoted over a decade to this. We're pretty new on the scene and unlike Carl who's an activist and whose main purpose is to protect the rule of law, we kind of stumbled into this lawsuit. We thought we were in the clear! Especially reading the case law, including the Veeck case (fought and lost by SBCCI which later became ICC) and seeing that Carl has most of the ICC materials on his site. We thought at the very least ICC wouldn't be able to relitigate this issue. It's bullshit. Anyway, UpCodes wouldn't exist if it weren't for Carl Malamud, Corynne McSherry and Peter Veeck.

cabaalis 8y ago
(IANAL) Good luck in your case, as it appears there is a government-created monopoly at work. I do believe ICC should own and control the copyrights to their work, however. It seems wrong that local and state governments can both (a) release themselves of their own governing decisions by choosing a sole-sourced third party to write the regulations and (b) allow that third party to control access to the regulations at the same time. However, having myself visited an area in an underdeveloped country which was basically a shantytown, we should all recognize that building codes improve the lives of everyone. The only real outcome that fits my IANAL vision of the law is to break up this monopoly and for local governments adopt and subsequently outline the codes themselves. The business could maybe then become selling those codes as a vendor to the government, but the governments themselves are the ones publishing them to their citizens.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  You could fix this issue by a federal law that says any law or regulation that isn't freely available is unenforceable. Oh your building code is copyrighted and you have to pay to get a copy? Good news! Legally there is no building code.
  - phjesusthatguy3 8y ago
    I'd go the other way and write it into law that the law is uncopywritable.
    - rhino369 8y ago
      The law is already uncopyrightable. The issue is whether anything incorporated by reference by the law would retroactively remove its copyright. If a court require files be submitted in .docx mean that MS loses copyright on .docx file structure?
      - gumby 8y ago
        The stuff incorporated by reference has the force of law so should be freely available and resdistributable. What's interesting is metadata: though court decisions themselves are not copyrightable, pagination and such (which is used by the courts to refer to other decisions) is. Disturbingly, when Malamud tried to publish Georgia's state laws he was accused of terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Federal_and_state_laws_are_not_protected_by_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
        Gibbon1 8y ago
        Opinion of mine, abuse of terrorism statutes should be a felony.
  - jimz 8y ago
    The federal government forcing a state to enforce a federal statute would definitely violate the 10th Amendment if the state has laws against that. I think most states have building codes irrespective of copyright status. However, the very scenario is covered generally by statute already. Regulations, even copyrighted ones adopted by an agency, must be publicly accessible to have the force of law. Freely accessible in most cases relate to having physical access to the text in some free way. This seems like something that can be solved very simply on the state level: just redefine publicly accessible to publicly accessible on the internet.
- sarbaz 8y ago
  The government should be able to use its power of Eminent Domain to buy the copyright from ICC. To me it seems like the only fair solution.
  - metaphor 8y ago
    And who will fix that price tag? Do you think ICC will sell their product even a penny short "for the greater benefit of the public"?
    - CogitoCogito 8y ago
      Well the previous poster was talking about eminent domain so in that case the government would set the price tag as it always does in eminent domain cases. However, eminent domain need not be used. The government could also purchase the copyright. Or the government could purchase a license that says something like "anyone subject to this law may copy/disseminate/etc. it" and simply make that a requirement of its procurement processes. Maybe the ICC doesn't want to play ball (and assuming no eminent domain), but in that case they wouldn't get any money at all (at least not from anyone bound by such a policy). Of course this would change the business model, but it's not like there isn't a way to monetize the work in such a system.
- Bombthecat 8y ago
  You realize that a ton of countries have good or even better building codes than the USA? Even without for profit firms?

cabaalis 8y ago

(IANAL) Good luck in your case, as it appears there is a government-created monopoly at work. I do believe ICC should own and control the copyrights to their work, however. It seems wrong that local and state governments can both (a) release themselves of their own governing decisions by choosing a sole-sourced third party to write the regulations and (b) allow that third party to control access to the regulations at the same time. However, having myself visited an area in an underdeveloped country which was basically a shantytown, we should all recognize that building codes improve the lives of everyone. The only real outcome that fits my IANAL vision of the law is to break up this monopoly and for local governments adopt and subsequently outline the codes themselves. The business could maybe then become selling those codes as a vendor to the government, but the governments themselves are the ones publishing them to their citizens.

Gibbon1 8y ago
You could fix this issue by a federal law that says any law or regulation that isn't freely available is unenforceable. Oh your building code is copyrighted and you have to pay to get a copy? Good news! Legally there is no building code.
- phjesusthatguy3 8y ago
  I'd go the other way and write it into law that the law is uncopywritable.
  - rhino369 8y ago
    The law is already uncopyrightable. The issue is whether anything incorporated by reference by the law would retroactively remove its copyright. If a court require files be submitted in .docx mean that MS loses copyright on .docx file structure?
    - gumby 8y ago
      The stuff incorporated by reference has the force of law so should be freely available and resdistributable. What's interesting is metadata: though court decisions themselves are not copyrightable, pagination and such (which is used by the courts to refer to other decisions) is. Disturbingly, when Malamud tried to publish Georgia's state laws he was accused of terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Federal_and_state_laws_are_not_protected_by_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
      - Gibbon1 8y ago
        Opinion of mine, abuse of terrorism statutes should be a felony.
- jimz 8y ago
  The federal government forcing a state to enforce a federal statute would definitely violate the 10th Amendment if the state has laws against that. I think most states have building codes irrespective of copyright status. However, the very scenario is covered generally by statute already. Regulations, even copyrighted ones adopted by an agency, must be publicly accessible to have the force of law. Freely accessible in most cases relate to having physical access to the text in some free way. This seems like something that can be solved very simply on the state level: just redefine publicly accessible to publicly accessible on the internet.
sarbaz 8y ago
The government should be able to use its power of Eminent Domain to buy the copyright from ICC. To me it seems like the only fair solution.
- metaphor 8y ago
  And who will fix that price tag? Do you think ICC will sell their product even a penny short "for the greater benefit of the public"?
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    Well the previous poster was talking about eminent domain so in that case the government would set the price tag as it always does in eminent domain cases. However, eminent domain need not be used. The government could also purchase the copyright. Or the government could purchase a license that says something like "anyone subject to this law may copy/disseminate/etc. it" and simply make that a requirement of its procurement processes. Maybe the ICC doesn't want to play ball (and assuming no eminent domain), but in that case they wouldn't get any money at all (at least not from anyone bound by such a policy). Of course this would change the business model, but it's not like there isn't a way to monetize the work in such a system.
Bombthecat 8y ago
You realize that a ton of countries have good or even better building codes than the USA? Even without for profit firms?