3 ms·

It sounds like UpCodes is making the argument that access to the building codes shouldn't be restricted so that they can build a business selling access to it.

It sounds like UpCodes is making the argument that access to the building codes shouldn't be restricted so that they can build a business selling access to it. Yes, they will have a free version, but their idea is that people will pay them instead of ICC.

elliekelly 8y ago
I don't think UpCodes is selling "access to building codes" so much as they're selling access to a platform for planning, tracking, and monitoring compliance with building codes. The building codes are a fundamental piece of what they're selling but it's not the entirety of what they're selling.
- Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
  That's right all the codes are freely accessible. Users have to pay if they want to use our search engine and collaboration tools. We started UpCodes for a couple reasons: one is to make money and build a business, another is because it seemed fun and interesting work, another is because we think this was important that no one was tackling (simplifying compliance, not the lawsuit which was unexpected and very unfortunate). > their idea is that people will pay them instead of ICC No, that's not right. Although, I admit I am pretty upset with them, they caused me a lot of personal anxiety of the last 19 months. But ICC makes most of their revenue from program services, including consulting, certification, and training[1]. We haven't every thought about doing any of that, so their primary revenue stream is very much safe. The also have membership dues which are quite significant too. [1] page 52 here: http://media.iccsafe.org/AnnualReports/2015/2015AnnualReport.pdf http://media.iccsafe.org/AnnualReports/2015/2015AnnualReport...
  - evilotto 8y ago
    > But ICC makes most of their revenue I didn't read through the whole report and I'll admit it's not entirely clear what all the line items are, but (1) the "program/member services" cost more than the revenue the "program services" generate, and if "product sales" does represent their sales of access to the standards it's well above a third of their revenue. IIUC, they're a nonprofit, so those sales, and the potential loss to a competitor are the difference between solvency and insolvency. > another is because we think this was important that no one was tackling Maybe I'm just tired of the "disruption" economy, which as I see it is (1) find a way to avoid paying for things that other businesses have been paying for, (2) claim you've found a better business model, (3) profit. c.f, Uber, Airbnb, Monkey Parking. In the "old days" you would have partnered with ICC, and built a better product together. But that's not exciting enough. Instead, you're doing it "disruption style" and trying to see what you can get away with. But face it, if you're successful, you're ruining peoples livelihoods. AIUI, these code standards are not some lunchtime conversations put together by politicians, they are specific, detailed requirements done by professionals for professionals, and one of the defining characteristic of being a professional is that you expect to be paid for your work. The question of whether the law can be copyrighted is a valid one. Legal publishing companies have been dealing with this question for a while now (the most common way of citing court cases comes from a private company). But people are also entitled to be paid for their work, and you can't upend the system until you solve that problem too.

elliekelly 8y ago

I don't think UpCodes is selling "access to building codes" so much as they're selling access to a platform for planning, tracking, and monitoring compliance with building codes. The building codes are a fundamental piece of what they're selling but it's not the entirety of what they're selling.

Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
That's right all the codes are freely accessible. Users have to pay if they want to use our search engine and collaboration tools. We started UpCodes for a couple reasons: one is to make money and build a business, another is because it seemed fun and interesting work, another is because we think this was important that no one was tackling (simplifying compliance, not the lawsuit which was unexpected and very unfortunate). > their idea is that people will pay them instead of ICC No, that's not right. Although, I admit I am pretty upset with them, they caused me a lot of personal anxiety of the last 19 months. But ICC makes most of their revenue from program services, including consulting, certification, and training[1]. We haven't every thought about doing any of that, so their primary revenue stream is very much safe. The also have membership dues which are quite significant too. [1] page 52 here: http://media.iccsafe.org/AnnualReports/2015/2015AnnualReport.pdf http://media.iccsafe.org/AnnualReports/2015/2015AnnualReport...
- evilotto 8y ago
  > But ICC makes most of their revenue I didn't read through the whole report and I'll admit it's not entirely clear what all the line items are, but (1) the "program/member services" cost more than the revenue the "program services" generate, and if "product sales" does represent their sales of access to the standards it's well above a third of their revenue. IIUC, they're a nonprofit, so those sales, and the potential loss to a competitor are the difference between solvency and insolvency. > another is because we think this was important that no one was tackling Maybe I'm just tired of the "disruption" economy, which as I see it is (1) find a way to avoid paying for things that other businesses have been paying for, (2) claim you've found a better business model, (3) profit. c.f, Uber, Airbnb, Monkey Parking. In the "old days" you would have partnered with ICC, and built a better product together. But that's not exciting enough. Instead, you're doing it "disruption style" and trying to see what you can get away with. But face it, if you're successful, you're ruining peoples livelihoods. AIUI, these code standards are not some lunchtime conversations put together by politicians, they are specific, detailed requirements done by professionals for professionals, and one of the defining characteristic of being a professional is that you expect to be paid for your work. The question of whether the law can be copyrighted is a valid one. Legal publishing companies have been dealing with this question for a while now (the most common way of citing court cases comes from a private company). But people are also entitled to be paid for their work, and you can't upend the system until you solve that problem too.