-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Referenced Standards
- Thread starter Devohle'
- Start date
fatboy
Administrator
Might be, and yes, I know you will pay for NFPA standards.
RLGA
SAWHORSE
Probably the closest thing to providing that is MADCAD.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
Not too many of these SDOs that allow downloading anymore
Looks like they might have what I need in the future. Thanks for the info!
Yikes
Gold Member
There was a Supreme Court case in 2020 that determined that published laws, including private (Lexis-Nexis) annotations on those laws, could not be copyrighted. I also know that states are required to publish their adopted codes online, though they need not be searchable. Thus, the IBC, IFC, etc. are viewable without cost on sites like www.up.codes
I'm wondering when that concept will extend to reference standards that are incorporated into adopted codes.
I'm wondering when that concept will extend to reference standards that are incorporated into adopted codes.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
I seem to have found I can view the text of most but not often downloads for free.
That is what I have found. It usually just shows a preview and not the whole document depending on the standard.
Reference standards incorporated into the adopted codes are part of the law and are thus subject to the principle that they are not subject to copyright restrictions.
The publishers of these reference standards are attempting to evade the implications of the court ruling by making the standards available in a manner that most would consider unsatisfactory. What we need is a court ruling that such limited access is unacceptable and that the entity adopting the building code is responsible for the cost of making the codes and reference standards available. So if I am effectively forced to purchase one of the adopted reference standards the local jurisdiction would reimburse me for the cost of purchasing the standard. I would expect that this would motivate the jurisdictions to make copies of the reference standards freely available.
While I would expect building department personnel to have access to the model code that has been adopted, I wonder how many building departments, have a copy of all of the reference standards and the reference standards referenced from the primary reference standards.
The publishers of these reference standards are attempting to evade the implications of the court ruling by making the standards available in a manner that most would consider unsatisfactory. What we need is a court ruling that such limited access is unacceptable and that the entity adopting the building code is responsible for the cost of making the codes and reference standards available. So if I am effectively forced to purchase one of the adopted reference standards the local jurisdiction would reimburse me for the cost of purchasing the standard. I would expect that this would motivate the jurisdictions to make copies of the reference standards freely available.
While I would expect building department personnel to have access to the model code that has been adopted, I wonder how many building departments, have a copy of all of the reference standards and the reference standards referenced from the primary reference standards.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
The payment for the standards is what pays for the development. If all standards have to be free, the government with our tax dollars will take over the development of standards. I guess some people like dealing with the DMV and documents written by a bureaucracy that. I prefer standards written by experts and specialists rather than civil servants.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Find Codes
ICC Digital Codes is the largest provider of model codes, custom codes and standards used worldwide to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures.
codes.iccsafe.org
The claim that the sale of standards pays for their development costs ignores some realities.
Maybe the entity adopting the codes should reimburse the standards body for their costs in producing the standard. This would be the direct costs and not the profit they currently charge.
In many cases the standards body would produce the standard even if they could not charge for access to the standard. Look at the way AISC makes their standards available for no cost. In addition, it should be noted that those involved in a standards committee are not reimbursed for their time by the standards body. Instead these individual either do it for free or as part of their regular job. So ICC takes the effort of those who write the model code and the reference standards without paying for the content and then charges monopolistic prices. You cannot submit a change to an ICC model code unless you assign any copyright you may own to ICC so they, not you, can benefit.
Does your state charge you if you want to find what the state statutes say?
Before you talk about civil servants you should appreciate the fact that building officials, who it could be argued are the authors of the ICC model codes are civil servants. Also note that FEMA funding indirectly pays for the development of ASCE-7 which is a key structural standard.
Maybe the entity adopting the codes should reimburse the standards body for their costs in producing the standard. This would be the direct costs and not the profit they currently charge.
In many cases the standards body would produce the standard even if they could not charge for access to the standard. Look at the way AISC makes their standards available for no cost. In addition, it should be noted that those involved in a standards committee are not reimbursed for their time by the standards body. Instead these individual either do it for free or as part of their regular job. So ICC takes the effort of those who write the model code and the reference standards without paying for the content and then charges monopolistic prices. You cannot submit a change to an ICC model code unless you assign any copyright you may own to ICC so they, not you, can benefit.
Does your state charge you if you want to find what the state statutes say?
Before you talk about civil servants you should appreciate the fact that building officials, who it could be argued are the authors of the ICC model codes are civil servants. Also note that FEMA funding indirectly pays for the development of ASCE-7 which is a key structural standard.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
I'm a volunteer on a number of code and standard committees (NFPA and ICC primarily) basically pay my own way since 1987, but there's a lot of staff time and resources to make it work. Regarding ICC, I know they struggle financially. Take away their income, they'll go out of business. Private and volunteers or more federal government? I prefer the private and volunteers.
PS I know a lot of building officials and they are nothing like the Washington bureaucrats I've had to work with.
PS I know a lot of building officials and they are nothing like the Washington bureaucrats I've had to work with.
Every single NFPA standard can be read for free at this link: https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/All-Codes-and-Standards/Codes-and-Standards
I am surprised to hear that ICC is struggling financially especially since they have no competition for what they have to sell. What are they doing wrong?
In California ICC publishes the California Building Code for California which consists of content from the IBC and content, including additional chapters produced by the state of California. ICC does not have to do anything with the state content except formatting it. So because of the added state content the CBC is published in two volumes while the IBC is one volume, but ICC essentially charges twice the price of the IBC. This could be because they are only charging for the printing costs or it could be because ICC saw an opportunity to add their mark up to the content produced by California.
My sense is that the dues that ICC charges an individual for dues is less than what professional societies charge. Maybe building department employees should pay more dues to support ICC. At least locally, building department employees are paid more than those with comparable qualifications who work to design the buildings so they could afford the higher dues.
I am surprised about the reference to the federal government and Washington Bureaucrats. The adoption of building codes is a right reserved to the state. The Federal government does not enforce the building code. So, when adopting the building code, the states can ignore the Washington bureaucrats. Personally, I have more problems with local modifications to the building code than those adopted by state agencies.
In California ICC publishes the California Building Code for California which consists of content from the IBC and content, including additional chapters produced by the state of California. ICC does not have to do anything with the state content except formatting it. So because of the added state content the CBC is published in two volumes while the IBC is one volume, but ICC essentially charges twice the price of the IBC. This could be because they are only charging for the printing costs or it could be because ICC saw an opportunity to add their mark up to the content produced by California.
My sense is that the dues that ICC charges an individual for dues is less than what professional societies charge. Maybe building department employees should pay more dues to support ICC. At least locally, building department employees are paid more than those with comparable qualifications who work to design the buildings so they could afford the higher dues.
I am surprised about the reference to the federal government and Washington Bureaucrats. The adoption of building codes is a right reserved to the state. The Federal government does not enforce the building code. So, when adopting the building code, the states can ignore the Washington bureaucrats. Personally, I have more problems with local modifications to the building code than those adopted by state agencies.
bill1952
SAWHORSE
I'd be surprised the building officials pay their own dues, and assume the jurisdiction - village, town, city, county, state, whatever - pay them.
If ICC doesn't publish a model code, and unlikely a private company would if they have to give it away, that only leaves the feds. The concept that each jurisdiction rolls their own is just horrific. And I'm sure it would cost much more if the feds did it.
fatboy
Administrator
Sweet! Thanks Glenn, you DA MAN!
bill1952
SAWHORSE
But not easy reading. You can turn pages and jump to a chapter iirc, but not search for terms and not cutting and pasting. I do a lot of screen copy when I need it. NFPA has done a thorough job of protecting their IP while making it available to see.
I think that is more than fair. The "information" is free. The packaging of the information for convenient professional use is not. I use the free viewing as a professional quite often and I invest in the better packaging when it's worth it for my needs.
I think any standards organization that does this should be applauded and we should shout it from the mountaintop in a positive way.
Check out NADRA and my proposal for the 2024 IRC, RB132-22. The AWPA does not offer free viewing of their M4 standard that is required for field treatment of treated lumber. It's $40 for three pages of what is basically "the mandatory installation instructions for treated lumber". THAT is something to complain about. I have for years and they won't budge. So, I wrote a proposal to put that information directly in the IRC where it can be viewed for free.
For me... NFPA, ICC, UL, AISI, AWC and the others with free viewing are champs and should be applauded as such. Perhaps a positive response to them would help encourage AWPA and the others with paywalls to do better in the future.
Yikes
Gold Member
First, let's all agree that there is no doubt that model codes have had a beneficial effect on public safety. And to the extent that those codes can be uniformly and prescriptively applied to building design and construction, they represent a type of "bight line rule" that is more efficient to disseminate and enforce in society.
The issue here is that in the case of model codes, copyrighted material has been incorporated as law, for which the public is then obligated to purchase (at whatever the price the seller may demand) in order to be in compliance with the law. To the extent that the code developers are able to get widespread adoption, it does tend towards a monopoly. True, these codes to allow an "alternative means of compliance" where one can deviate from the code, but this also requires purchase of the adopted codes in order to compare and prove the alternative design is as safe or safer.
There is a term economists use to describe the process of lobbying government to create a regulatory hurdle which then creates a captured market for your own product: Rent seeking. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
Oftentimes the term is used disparagingly, in extremes where the rent-seeker were not producing anything useful. But that doesn't have to be the case - - the product can be highly useful and beneficial. The "rent" simply refers to the profit: Gross income from the product minus the development and lobbying costs. What gets left our of the calculation is the other, less tangible costs to society. If only people with money can afford to read the regulations to ensure compliance, then those without money don't have the means to ensure compliance.
The issue here is that in the case of model codes, copyrighted material has been incorporated as law, for which the public is then obligated to purchase (at whatever the price the seller may demand) in order to be in compliance with the law. To the extent that the code developers are able to get widespread adoption, it does tend towards a monopoly. True, these codes to allow an "alternative means of compliance" where one can deviate from the code, but this also requires purchase of the adopted codes in order to compare and prove the alternative design is as safe or safer.
There is a term economists use to describe the process of lobbying government to create a regulatory hurdle which then creates a captured market for your own product: Rent seeking. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
Oftentimes the term is used disparagingly, in extremes where the rent-seeker were not producing anything useful. But that doesn't have to be the case - - the product can be highly useful and beneficial. The "rent" simply refers to the profit: Gross income from the product minus the development and lobbying costs. What gets left our of the calculation is the other, less tangible costs to society. If only people with money can afford to read the regulations to ensure compliance, then those without money don't have the means to ensure compliance.
The law is clear there is no copyright of the law. This includes the building code.
It is also clear that publishers of standards and model codes put up hurdles that while claiming to comply with the law which discourages individuals form effectively accessing the law. How can we comply with the law if we do not have access to the law?
What is unclear is how individuals can claim the obstructive behavior is a good thing.
If we recognized that when a jurisdiction adopts a model code or reference standard it is a taking, then the publishers of the model code or standard would be reimbursed for their cost by the entity doing the taking. This is their costs and not their monopolistic profits.
If the documents are made available electronically there would be no need to include the printing and distribution expenses in the costs that need reimbursing.
The motivation of publishers of model codes and reference standards is in general not to make a profit by selling the documents and as a result if the sales of these standards and model codes were to be greatly reduced, the documents would still be published. Because of this the end of the world will not occur if we follow the law.
It is also clear that publishers of standards and model codes put up hurdles that while claiming to comply with the law which discourages individuals form effectively accessing the law. How can we comply with the law if we do not have access to the law?
What is unclear is how individuals can claim the obstructive behavior is a good thing.
If we recognized that when a jurisdiction adopts a model code or reference standard it is a taking, then the publishers of the model code or standard would be reimbursed for their cost by the entity doing the taking. This is their costs and not their monopolistic profits.
If the documents are made available electronically there would be no need to include the printing and distribution expenses in the costs that need reimbursing.
The motivation of publishers of model codes and reference standards is in general not to make a profit by selling the documents and as a result if the sales of these standards and model codes were to be greatly reduced, the documents would still be published. Because of this the end of the world will not occur if we follow the law.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Up until the 2018 adoption we would provide a complete set of code books to the county library. As for standards I could never afford to purchase all of them.
Yikes
Gold Member
Under that system, it would be appropriate for the county library to also have copies of all referenced standards available for viewing.
On a related note, I am totally OK with the code developers charging users a premium for additional convenience features such as an online search function.
If a jurisdiction does not have access to all of the standards referenced in the code how can they claim to enforce all of the code? The net effect is that those making the decision not to purchase the standards have effectively illegally decided to modify the code. Only the entity authorized to adopt the code can modify it and such modifications must be subject to due process.
We cannot force the building department personnel to read all of the standards, but we can insist that they at least have the opportunity to read the standards.
We cannot force the building department personnel to read all of the standards, but we can insist that they at least have the opportunity to read the standards.