5 ms·

So my wife works for general code which was acquired by ICC and she gave me her inside scoop on this. It's a tough gray zone because of how ICC's business model

So my wife works for general code which was acquired by ICC and she gave me her inside scoop on this. It's a tough gray zone because of how ICC's business model is structured. They are not government funded and to write the codes take a lot of people a lot of man hours. Unlike general code, they write code for the entire state and offset cost to the people who access it professionally. On the ICC v. UpCodes battle, UpCodes just ripped the content from ICC and used it to create their own app. The ethical gray zone I see is this: if ICC can't fund the process of writing the codes, how will they get written? Can a for-profit company like UpCodes be trusted to take up the reigns on that if ICC can no longer justify creating the codes?

wefarrell 8y ago
If ICC generates less revenue, they won’t be able to fund as many new building codes. Wouldn’t that result in a less fractured and more simplified code system? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
- iratewizard 8y ago
  I don't agree with that. The way I see it, looser codes could very well start making the US look like China with man-eating escalators and frequent structural failures.
  - mortenjorck 8y ago
    How many different versions of escalator safety codes does the world need? Even for something like pile foundations that may have some geological variance by region, aren't there certain heuristics that should always be followed, with appropriate site surveying and structural analysis?
    - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
      Exactly, and does each state and county really need its own of each code or have to add its own amendments? There are some particular scenarios though where they do: NYC has an extra code related to flooding, California has an earthquake code. Still you'd think a couple states or even a couple countries could all use the same earthquake code.
      - metaphor 8y ago
        > There are some particular scenarios... Building considerations are waaaaaay more involved and complicated than you can even begin to imagine.
        Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        Well, a lot of the inter-state differences, I've never understood. For example, Massachusetts changed the stair riser height from 7-3/4" to 8-1/4" (https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/building-planning#R311.7.5.1 https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/bui...). Why do 49 states (I think) have one height and MA has a different one? Not saying all the differences don't make sense just a fair amount of them. I'm also not an industry professional (despite staring at these codes all day, I'm usually not actually reading them), so honestly asking here.
        metaphor 8y ago
        Couldn't tell you what the philosophy or justification behind MA's stair riser requirement is. Have you considered that perhaps the engineers who contributed that change to the MA residential code have done their homework, identified value worth pursuing (whether for safety, building optimization, new material availability, future planning, etc.), and decided it was worth going through what surely isn't a painless ECP process to amend what you've dismissed to be trivial minutae?
        Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        I haven't, on second thought, I should have done my homework before taking a stance on that.
        wahern 8y ago
        I imagine a lot of differences relate to different regional building practices, stemming from both historic trends but also geographic realities. Especially in older areas (but arguably in newer areas, too) you want to permit a greater range of configurations otherwise you risk people abstaining from fixing or replacing unsafe areas, or avoiding permitting altogether. Notably, 8-1/4" is the maximum height--the change allowed more options but people are perfectly free to continue using more common dimensions. All that really matters is 7-11: the magic ratio for building your own stairs. Perhaps not the most ideal, but the easiest to remember and also trivial to build from common dimensional lumber[1] :) On a more serious note, what _truly_ matters is consistency of the steps. Interstep deviations are what cause most injuries. After the first or second step, w'ever the rise/run, the brain has already adapted. [1] 2x6" boards are actually 1.5x5.5". 5.5+1.5==7 and 5.5*2==11. 7-11 is the traditional American rise/run ratio. I think it's mostly coincidental, though, that 2x6 dimensional lumber adds up the way it does.
  - wefarrell 8y ago
    I hardly see how that's connected to the number of laws on the books. My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. In developed countries, buildings are funded by banks, which require insurance, which require inspections.
    - metaphor 8y ago
      > My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. You clearly haven't seen the kind of half-baked crap that comes out of unregulated construction. Even in places with established building code, certain outcomes aren't always guaranteed, e.g. the dumpster fires known as LA and SF.
    - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
      Building codes do definitely play a role. A lot of them are written in reaction to some tragedy (fire, earthquake, structural failure, etc). Here's an interesting assertion: "the biggest potential saving of lives in rural areas lies in compliance with better building standards, so that homes and schools do not collapse so easily" (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507/enforcing-building-rules-will-save-lives https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507...)
- tomohawk 8y ago
  Code is "minimal acceptable", so yes. Meeting code does not imply "quality". The code bodies are really out of control at this point. They are unelected and unaccountable to anyone. Meanwhile, the codes they come up with get incorporated by local political hacks. Detached residential buildings in our area now require fire sprinkler systems to be installed. This is way over the top, adding considerable cost and risk. Talked to a local fire department volunteer who said a large number of their calls are to go to peoples homes and turn off the sprinklers that were activated by false alarm (you're not allowed to). The owners suffer extensive flood damage for nothing, and often don't realize their homeowners insurance doesn't have a flood rider to cover the damage. So, this one change wastes emergency personnel time and destroys property. Good job! Meanwhile, the people who wrote the code are not impacted in any way by this. It gets better. People not on municipal water (very large percentage) have no hope of feeding such a sprinkler system, so are required to install a water tank in their attic. This complicates remodeling to such an extent - its yet another reason people are getting uninspected work done.
larkeith 8y ago
I mean, the solution seems pretty obvious to me - if the codes are legally-binding, their development should be funded by the governments which use them.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  I disagree. I think that if the codes are legally binding (and the government funds them) then they should be created by a government body. Private entities shouldn't be making money off of creating regulation. That's literally the job of the government.
  - lultimouomo 8y ago
    But several states could band together and fund a non-profit to write the code, so that uniformity is ensured across borders.
Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
The majority of ICC’s revenue comes from program services, including consulting, certification, and training, which do not rely on profiting by limiting access to the law. In addition, the laws are written by volunteers. ICC convenes committees of volunteers who author the law. That's how the run such huge profit margins. EDIT: Disclaimer - As stated in a couple other spots on this page, I am a cofounder of UpCodes.
- iratewizard 8y ago
  The committees don't write the code, they consult on what codes they want to see. Those people should be volunteers, otherwise it would introduce conflicting interests. The data they gather is then codified paid employees. They have no profit margin as they are a non-profit and they have highly paid executives because they are enormous in scale. Stop talking out of your ass.
- iratewizard 8y ago
  I just saw that your the co-founder of upcodes and spreading blatant lies about your competitor. Pretty sleezy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sect46 8y ago
    He posted the article too. I agree that it's really sleazy to concern-troll when you're really just swaying public opinion towards your company.
    - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
      I submitted the article and then left the first comment telling everyone I'm the cofounder and happy to answer questions. No tricks here. > it's really sleazy to concern-troll Not sure why you're so angry at me. I think it's quite fair for me to go public with this lawsuit. Do I hope that public opinion sides with what we're doing. Yes, of course. Is that bad? I happen to also really believe in what we're doing and the fight we took on. I was a fan of Carl Malamud before we started this company. And that's doubly true when you consider how aggressive ICC has been in this lawsuit. I mean, suing us personally, trying to bankrupt us? Deposing and subpoena'ing personal friends of ours?
mr_bojangles 8y ago
The average salary for the top three ICC execs is $522,000/year (based on their 990s). Surprising for a non-profit. Hard to think they are cash strapped.
- iratewizard 8y ago
  And I make half that in my mid 20s. So? That doesn't change the argument.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    I'm interested in learning more about where you work, what you do, etc. If you're Ok with that, my user page has my contact info.
- metaphor 8y ago
  That an organization is a recognized 501(c)(3)/(6) doesn't mean it isn't a business.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
> how will they get written? If government wants to institute regulations it can pay for them.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Through taxes, which your common citizen will gripe over because they don't see the value. Same reason we have crippling infrastructure paralysis (which, in some jurisdictions, is "fixed" with tolls). I still think taxes would be superior for funding, but I see the need for the current methodology. The alternative would be comparisons to the GPG maintainer barely able to afford their bills. The ICC seems to be the regulatory code version of Let's Encrypt (backed by copyright law).
  - tathougies 8y ago
    On the other hand, currently cities and municipalities end up including the development cost in their taxes anyway, because the main consumer of such codes (and thus ICCs main customers) are cities, municipalities, and states. Contractors are another major consumer I'd guess and the average individual is paying for those too. So actually paying for it in taxes would likely lower both taxes as well as construction costs, because it's likely ICC also compensates its employees really well.
    - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
      Exactly. The cost is still passed on to the citizens, probably even more so. In addition, every year in the US, $4B is wasted in construction rework which is really dumb. One of the things we're trying to do at UpCodes is to create a checker for 3D building models to help catch some of these errors upstream. If we didn't have the fundraising to fight back against the lawsuit, we'd never have gotten to work on this. BTW, it's not only government officials and industry people who have to read these laws, it's also all homeowners doing any kind of renovation or DIY project.
  - 6nf 8y ago
    > your common citizen will gripe over because they don't see the value I have NEVER heard of anyone complaining about being taxed a few pennies a year to fund government regulations that save lives or whatever.
tathougies 8y ago
The question isn't really whether ICC has the right to create codes and sell them and hold copyright (of course they do). It's whether a government, such as the state of Michigan or the state of California or the city of New york, that is bound by the Constitution of the United States of America is allowed to legislate a privately copyrighted text into law. The answer to me seems an obvious no, but I guess the courts will decide. ICC hasn't done anything wrong here; if there's anyone who's broken the law, it's the government.
- delinka 8y ago
  "Breaking the law" and "infringing copyright" are orthogonal. It becomes the responsibility of the copyright holder to sue for infringement. In this case, however, it's in the copyright holder's interest to not do that: as a result of these documents being referenced into law, others must obtain a license (e.g. by paying a fee) to access them. However, if the government acted as expected, incorporating a copyrighted work into law would necessarily place the work into the public domain, as are all other laws that were directly written into the legal code, thus removing the copyright from the owner. This, I suspect, would indeed result in a lawsuit against the government for attempting to reallocate copyright without due process (or some such legal complaint.) When an engineering firm spends considerable revenue designing specifications that should become regulations, how should we compensate them and still maintain free access? I don't have any good answers myself.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    The enforcement of the law and the actual breakage of the law are two separate events. While you're right that it is the copyright holder who has to ask the government for enforcement. Using a copyrighted work to which you do not own the license is against the law, and the government is capable of violating the law as well.
  - supercheetah 8y ago
    The government should just pay them for their codes for becoming public domain. How much I'm not sure about, but it should at least be for their expenses plus some interest over the time they spent.

wefarrell 8y ago

If ICC generates less revenue, they won’t be able to fund as many new building codes. Wouldn’t that result in a less fractured and more simplified code system? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

iratewizard 8y ago
I don't agree with that. The way I see it, looser codes could very well start making the US look like China with man-eating escalators and frequent structural failures.
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  How many different versions of escalator safety codes does the world need? Even for something like pile foundations that may have some geological variance by region, aren't there certain heuristics that should always be followed, with appropriate site surveying and structural analysis?
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    Exactly, and does each state and county really need its own of each code or have to add its own amendments? There are some particular scenarios though where they do: NYC has an extra code related to flooding, California has an earthquake code. Still you'd think a couple states or even a couple countries could all use the same earthquake code.
    - metaphor 8y ago
      > There are some particular scenarios... Building considerations are waaaaaay more involved and complicated than you can even begin to imagine.
      - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        Well, a lot of the inter-state differences, I've never understood. For example, Massachusetts changed the stair riser height from 7-3/4" to 8-1/4" (https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/building-planning#R311.7.5.1 https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/bui...). Why do 49 states (I think) have one height and MA has a different one? Not saying all the differences don't make sense just a fair amount of them. I'm also not an industry professional (despite staring at these codes all day, I'm usually not actually reading them), so honestly asking here.
        metaphor 8y ago
        Couldn't tell you what the philosophy or justification behind MA's stair riser requirement is. Have you considered that perhaps the engineers who contributed that change to the MA residential code have done their homework, identified value worth pursuing (whether for safety, building optimization, new material availability, future planning, etc.), and decided it was worth going through what surely isn't a painless ECP process to amend what you've dismissed to be trivial minutae?
        Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        I haven't, on second thought, I should have done my homework before taking a stance on that.
        wahern 8y ago
        I imagine a lot of differences relate to different regional building practices, stemming from both historic trends but also geographic realities. Especially in older areas (but arguably in newer areas, too) you want to permit a greater range of configurations otherwise you risk people abstaining from fixing or replacing unsafe areas, or avoiding permitting altogether. Notably, 8-1/4" is the maximum height--the change allowed more options but people are perfectly free to continue using more common dimensions. All that really matters is 7-11: the magic ratio for building your own stairs. Perhaps not the most ideal, but the easiest to remember and also trivial to build from common dimensional lumber[1] :) On a more serious note, what _truly_ matters is consistency of the steps. Interstep deviations are what cause most injuries. After the first or second step, w'ever the rise/run, the brain has already adapted. [1] 2x6" boards are actually 1.5x5.5". 5.5+1.5==7 and 5.5*2==11. 7-11 is the traditional American rise/run ratio. I think it's mostly coincidental, though, that 2x6 dimensional lumber adds up the way it does.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  I hardly see how that's connected to the number of laws on the books. My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. In developed countries, buildings are funded by banks, which require insurance, which require inspections.
  - metaphor 8y ago
    > My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. You clearly haven't seen the kind of half-baked crap that comes out of unregulated construction. Even in places with established building code, certain outcomes aren't always guaranteed, e.g. the dumpster fires known as LA and SF.
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    Building codes do definitely play a role. A lot of them are written in reaction to some tragedy (fire, earthquake, structural failure, etc). Here's an interesting assertion: "the biggest potential saving of lives in rural areas lies in compliance with better building standards, so that homes and schools do not collapse so easily" (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507/enforcing-building-rules-will-save-lives https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507...)
tomohawk 8y ago
Code is "minimal acceptable", so yes. Meeting code does not imply "quality". The code bodies are really out of control at this point. They are unelected and unaccountable to anyone. Meanwhile, the codes they come up with get incorporated by local political hacks. Detached residential buildings in our area now require fire sprinkler systems to be installed. This is way over the top, adding considerable cost and risk. Talked to a local fire department volunteer who said a large number of their calls are to go to peoples homes and turn off the sprinklers that were activated by false alarm (you're not allowed to). The owners suffer extensive flood damage for nothing, and often don't realize their homeowners insurance doesn't have a flood rider to cover the damage. So, this one change wastes emergency personnel time and destroys property. Good job! Meanwhile, the people who wrote the code are not impacted in any way by this. It gets better. People not on municipal water (very large percentage) have no hope of feeding such a sprinkler system, so are required to install a water tank in their attic. This complicates remodeling to such an extent - its yet another reason people are getting uninspected work done.

larkeith 8y ago

I mean, the solution seems pretty obvious to me - if the codes are legally-binding, their development should be funded by the governments which use them.

Mirioron 8y ago
I disagree. I think that if the codes are legally binding (and the government funds them) then they should be created by a government body. Private entities shouldn't be making money off of creating regulation. That's literally the job of the government.
- lultimouomo 8y ago
  But several states could band together and fund a non-profit to write the code, so that uniformity is ensured across borders.

Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago

The majority of ICC’s revenue comes from program services, including consulting, certification, and training, which do not rely on profiting by limiting access to the law. In addition, the laws are written by volunteers. ICC convenes committees of volunteers who author the law. That's how the run such huge profit margins. EDIT: Disclaimer - As stated in a couple other spots on this page, I am a cofounder of UpCodes.

iratewizard 8y ago
The committees don't write the code, they consult on what codes they want to see. Those people should be volunteers, otherwise it would introduce conflicting interests. The data they gather is then codified paid employees. They have no profit margin as they are a non-profit and they have highly paid executives because they are enormous in scale. Stop talking out of your ass.
iratewizard 8y ago
I just saw that your the co-founder of upcodes and spreading blatant lies about your competitor. Pretty sleezy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sect46 8y ago
  He posted the article too. I agree that it's really sleazy to concern-troll when you're really just swaying public opinion towards your company.
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    I submitted the article and then left the first comment telling everyone I'm the cofounder and happy to answer questions. No tricks here. > it's really sleazy to concern-troll Not sure why you're so angry at me. I think it's quite fair for me to go public with this lawsuit. Do I hope that public opinion sides with what we're doing. Yes, of course. Is that bad? I happen to also really believe in what we're doing and the fight we took on. I was a fan of Carl Malamud before we started this company. And that's doubly true when you consider how aggressive ICC has been in this lawsuit. I mean, suing us personally, trying to bankrupt us? Deposing and subpoena'ing personal friends of ours?

mr_bojangles 8y ago

The average salary for the top three ICC execs is $522,000/year (based on their 990s). Surprising for a non-profit. Hard to think they are cash strapped.

iratewizard 8y ago
And I make half that in my mid 20s. So? That doesn't change the argument.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  I'm interested in learning more about where you work, what you do, etc. If you're Ok with that, my user page has my contact info.
metaphor 8y ago
That an organization is a recognized 501(c)(3)/(6) doesn't mean it isn't a business.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

> how will they get written? If government wants to institute regulations it can pay for them.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Through taxes, which your common citizen will gripe over because they don't see the value. Same reason we have crippling infrastructure paralysis (which, in some jurisdictions, is "fixed" with tolls). I still think taxes would be superior for funding, but I see the need for the current methodology. The alternative would be comparisons to the GPG maintainer barely able to afford their bills. The ICC seems to be the regulatory code version of Let's Encrypt (backed by copyright law).
- tathougies 8y ago
  On the other hand, currently cities and municipalities end up including the development cost in their taxes anyway, because the main consumer of such codes (and thus ICCs main customers) are cities, municipalities, and states. Contractors are another major consumer I'd guess and the average individual is paying for those too. So actually paying for it in taxes would likely lower both taxes as well as construction costs, because it's likely ICC also compensates its employees really well.
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    Exactly. The cost is still passed on to the citizens, probably even more so. In addition, every year in the US, $4B is wasted in construction rework which is really dumb. One of the things we're trying to do at UpCodes is to create a checker for 3D building models to help catch some of these errors upstream. If we didn't have the fundraising to fight back against the lawsuit, we'd never have gotten to work on this. BTW, it's not only government officials and industry people who have to read these laws, it's also all homeowners doing any kind of renovation or DIY project.
- 6nf 8y ago
  > your common citizen will gripe over because they don't see the value I have NEVER heard of anyone complaining about being taxed a few pennies a year to fund government regulations that save lives or whatever.

tathougies 8y ago

The question isn't really whether ICC has the right to create codes and sell them and hold copyright (of course they do). It's whether a government, such as the state of Michigan or the state of California or the city of New york, that is bound by the Constitution of the United States of America is allowed to legislate a privately copyrighted text into law. The answer to me seems an obvious no, but I guess the courts will decide. ICC hasn't done anything wrong here; if there's anyone who's broken the law, it's the government.

delinka 8y ago
"Breaking the law" and "infringing copyright" are orthogonal. It becomes the responsibility of the copyright holder to sue for infringement. In this case, however, it's in the copyright holder's interest to not do that: as a result of these documents being referenced into law, others must obtain a license (e.g. by paying a fee) to access them. However, if the government acted as expected, incorporating a copyrighted work into law would necessarily place the work into the public domain, as are all other laws that were directly written into the legal code, thus removing the copyright from the owner. This, I suspect, would indeed result in a lawsuit against the government for attempting to reallocate copyright without due process (or some such legal complaint.) When an engineering firm spends considerable revenue designing specifications that should become regulations, how should we compensate them and still maintain free access? I don't have any good answers myself.
- tathougies 8y ago
  The enforcement of the law and the actual breakage of the law are two separate events. While you're right that it is the copyright holder who has to ask the government for enforcement. Using a copyrighted work to which you do not own the license is against the law, and the government is capable of violating the law as well.
- supercheetah 8y ago
  The government should just pay them for their codes for becoming public domain. How much I'm not sure about, but it should at least be for their expenses plus some interest over the time they spent.