Carl Malamud’s Lawsuit-Fighting Kickstarter to Put Public Standards Online(nextcity.org)
nextcity.org
Carl Malamud’s Lawsuit-Fighting Kickstarter to Put Public Standards Online
http://nextcity.org/sharedcity/entry/carl-malamuds-lawsuit-fighting-kickstarter-campaign-to-put-public-standards
13 comments
I am really torn on this lawsuit. I work with NFPA standards. Currently many standards are available online for free on the nfpa website.
The issue with this being a completely free publication is how would we maintain the development? The people who sit on the committees already volunteer their time.
NFPA still has to maintain the documents, handle grant application, research, publications, free resources (like fire safety month). Would they be able to solicit enough donations to handle even their core duties. Large companies could handle it but how many copies are sold to firms that would prefer not to spend anything on it?
The issue with this being a completely free publication is how would we maintain the development? The people who sit on the committees already volunteer their time.
NFPA still has to maintain the documents, handle grant application, research, publications, free resources (like fire safety month). Would they be able to solicit enough donations to handle even their core duties. Large companies could handle it but how many copies are sold to firms that would prefer not to spend anything on it?
I work with standards as well (structural engineer), and I am 100% in favor of them being freely available.
Codes and standards are EXTREMELY expensive. A typical code will cost in the 200-400 dollar range, and will be updated every 2-3 years (requiring repurchase). And a practitioner can easily use 10-20 different codes.
Because a building HAS to be built to code, the codes end up being responsible for how billions of construction dollars are spent. Keeping this information restricted is extremely irresponsible, and makes it easier for code writing to be hijacked by special interests. (Possibly apocryphal story relayed to be by my boss: Most model plumbing codes don't allow PVC pipe to be used to for interior water distribution. This has little to do with the effectiveness of PVC pipe, but was lobbied for by plumbers unions, as PVC can be installed without the aid of a plumber.)
Not to mention the fact that once these standards become incorporated into a state building code they carry the force of law, and legal precedent is fairly strongly in favor of "the law can't be copyrighted"
There's many ways to still make money without charging the egregious price the codes currently cost.
-Give an electronic version away for free, but charge for a paper copy.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for a design manual that makes it easier to use. This is essentially what the AISC does - the steel code is available for free, they simply charge for a design manual that gives standard steel member and connections properties/capacities. PCI does this as well.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for the code commentary. This is what PCA does.
Codes and standards are EXTREMELY expensive. A typical code will cost in the 200-400 dollar range, and will be updated every 2-3 years (requiring repurchase). And a practitioner can easily use 10-20 different codes.
Because a building HAS to be built to code, the codes end up being responsible for how billions of construction dollars are spent. Keeping this information restricted is extremely irresponsible, and makes it easier for code writing to be hijacked by special interests. (Possibly apocryphal story relayed to be by my boss: Most model plumbing codes don't allow PVC pipe to be used to for interior water distribution. This has little to do with the effectiveness of PVC pipe, but was lobbied for by plumbers unions, as PVC can be installed without the aid of a plumber.)
Not to mention the fact that once these standards become incorporated into a state building code they carry the force of law, and legal precedent is fairly strongly in favor of "the law can't be copyrighted"
There's many ways to still make money without charging the egregious price the codes currently cost.
-Give an electronic version away for free, but charge for a paper copy.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for a design manual that makes it easier to use. This is essentially what the AISC does - the steel code is available for free, they simply charge for a design manual that gives standard steel member and connections properties/capacities. PCI does this as well.
-Give the standard away for free, but charge for the code commentary. This is what PCA does.
I only commented on NFPA b/c that is the heart of what I use in Fire Protection.
NFPA does allow you to access many of the current standards for free online.
I know in my hometown library they keep a copy of the current adopted additions on hand as a way to have it published, but how often is it used by people outside of their job duties. Being that I would expect very few people not involved in contruction or design would pick up a standard. Same way how open source code is not something you expect to be read by people who have no professional interest in the process.
Lastly NFPA current edition of NFPA 13 for fire sprinkler systems is approx $80. And very few other codes that would be required to operate as a fire sprinkler contractor (to clarify I know some contractors that have only NFPA13 in their office and other that have the whole set but both can properly operate).
NFPA does allow you to access many of the current standards for free online.
I know in my hometown library they keep a copy of the current adopted additions on hand as a way to have it published, but how often is it used by people outside of their job duties. Being that I would expect very few people not involved in contruction or design would pick up a standard. Same way how open source code is not something you expect to be read by people who have no professional interest in the process.
Lastly NFPA current edition of NFPA 13 for fire sprinkler systems is approx $80. And very few other codes that would be required to operate as a fire sprinkler contractor (to clarify I know some contractors that have only NFPA13 in their office and other that have the whole set but both can properly operate).
It would be great if you could add some context for readers who don't know about NFPA, or about how the US standards system currently works. Otherwise I'm (from India) having a hard time trying to figure out why public works standards would ever need to be monetized/paywalled/copyrighted?
the standards are on their own development cycle. then city/county/state adopt the standards and make any alterations they want.
My original post talks about what orginizations like nfpa offer in return for the publishing of the standards.
I also want to point out that I would put money on NFPA standards being used in India, they are currently used in multiple countries.
My original post talks about what orginizations like nfpa offer in return for the publishing of the standards.
I also want to point out that I would put money on NFPA standards being used in India, they are currently used in multiple countries.
Starting halfway through the article:
"To the SDOs [standards development organizations], the system works rather well. They take on the burden of developing standards, an obligation that in many other countries falls on government. They convene experts and build systems for collating and distributing these standards. They even offer limited free access... [Malamud] argues, the effect of these standards is felt on the ground each and every day, as well as in the pocketbooks of local governments. In a video posted by Malamud, the head building inspector for Sonoma County, Calif. testifies that the country spends about $30,000 during a code cycle buying copies of building code for staff."
Everything the government uses as a standard should be freely available to the public in a machine readable format. By selling standards to the government I assert the SDO's should be required to forfeit their copyright. But that will never happen; it's the same bullshit as with PACER and court documents, some asshole has found a way to rent-seek on publicly owned IP and the system allows it because few people care out loud.
"To the SDOs [standards development organizations], the system works rather well. They take on the burden of developing standards, an obligation that in many other countries falls on government. They convene experts and build systems for collating and distributing these standards. They even offer limited free access... [Malamud] argues, the effect of these standards is felt on the ground each and every day, as well as in the pocketbooks of local governments. In a video posted by Malamud, the head building inspector for Sonoma County, Calif. testifies that the country spends about $30,000 during a code cycle buying copies of building code for staff."
Everything the government uses as a standard should be freely available to the public in a machine readable format. By selling standards to the government I assert the SDO's should be required to forfeit their copyright. But that will never happen; it's the same bullshit as with PACER and court documents, some asshole has found a way to rent-seek on publicly owned IP and the system allows it because few people care out loud.
In fact, court rulings have upheld that once a standard becomes a law, the SDOs DO forfeit their copyright. "The law can't be copyrighted" has legal precedent dating back to the 1800's, and was most recently upheld (specifically with respect to building codes) in the vase of Veeck vs. SBCCI:
http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readin...
That's why Malamud hasn't been sued by the ICC, even though he makes their primary publications (The International Building Code, which every state uses some flavor of) freely available.
http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/Cases%20&%20Readin...
That's why Malamud hasn't been sued by the ICC, even though he makes their primary publications (The International Building Code, which every state uses some flavor of) freely available.
Kickstarter? I joke, but the serious proposal would be to do work on a "pay us and then we will make it" basis, and release the product free.
With names like they have, I was shocked to realise they weren't QANGOs[1].
In the UK, such bodies would always be publicly funded - it doesn't make sense to do it any other way, as then they have to worry about profit and funding themselves! QANGOs still have to worry about funding cuts from axe-friendly tories, but at least they can publish evidence of what a good job they do.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango
In the UK, such bodies would always be publicly funded - it doesn't make sense to do it any other way, as then they have to worry about profit and funding themselves! QANGOs still have to worry about funding cuts from axe-friendly tories, but at least they can publish evidence of what a good job they do.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango
This stuff is well worth supporting. It annoys the heck out of me when IEEE and ANSI hold standards hostage.
He's setting himself up for failure everybody agrees with the fact that all public standards should be available on the internet however very few people are willing to pay for that to happen.
We kind of think it's the government's duty to release and make public on the internet as well as everywhere else these standards without us having to spend our hard earned money on it.
That's what we pay taxes for.
We kind of think it's the government's duty to release and make public on the internet as well as everywhere else these standards without us having to spend our hard earned money on it.
That's what we pay taxes for.
http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2506677
Appropriately, PlainSite uses a lot of materials that Carl helped make possible (including Aaron Swartz's initial PACER data dump, which he still hosts).