I have run across a term for the first time and do not know if it is a bit of esoteric jargon or a phrase that has become widely used in construction:
– standard development organization (SDO)
On the flip side, is the following term now outdated?
– standard writing body
Michael,
Yours is a good question. Although there is nothing incorrect with “standard writing body,” SDO is the broadly-recognized name for an organization that develops consensus standards (ASTM, SDI, DHI…).
According to a recent NIBS newsletter, the ABA is trying to get free public access for publications by SDOs that are referenced in building codes, which means taxpayers will pay the cost. I’ll forward the newsletter to you guys.
ABA = Air Barriers Association ?
= American Bar Association ?
= Another Bloody Acronym ?
It is well established law that you cannot copyright the law. Building regulations are law.
The cost of building regulations often has no relationship to the cost of developing them. In many cases trade organizations will still develop standards even if they generate no income. So this will not be the end of the world.
how do you distinguish between law and arbitrary standards?
how do you distinguish between reasonable standards and arbitrary laws?
From a legal perspective the terms arbitrary and reasonable are irrelevant.
Laws consist of statutes which are adopted by the legislative body and regulations which are adopted by an administrative body that was created by the legislature. Not all standards are laws.
A standard may be adopted as a code or incorporated into a regulation.
Would be interested in the reference to the NIBS newsletter.
NIBS news release dated July 19, 2016: “ABA Resolution Could Reduce Safety, Increase Costs, Add Undue Burden to Tax Payers”
We have competing arguments.
The legal precedent is clear that there should be no copyright on building codes. What is needed is for the courts to clearly make that point.
Because of the cost many design professionals do not have the standards they should have.
More individuals will have access to the codes. With copyrights the standards organizations can limit the ability of third parties to publish detailed commentaries.
Some standards organizations do more than recover the code development costs. Instead they use the codes as a source of income. I believe the overall cost to society will be less but the money will come out of different pockets.
It is interesting that AISC makes the standards available for free. The ability to influence the standards is more important than the cost to develop.
I believe that this link is to the ABA resolution. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/administrative_law/107a%20incorporation%20by%20reference.authcheckdam.pdf
SCIP members now have access the MADCAD database of standards as part of the membership. It is a great reason to join SCIP.
I also put a thank you out to NFPA for making its standards available online.
I suggest that NFPA is not acting out of a sense of what is good. Rather they understand the issue and are trying to blunt the likelihood that courts will recognize that there is no copyright.
The ABA proposed resolution has three parts:
I think this serves the public good by assuring the public can access the documents without a means test. The resolution applies to standards that apply to all Federal laws, not just construction. This will benefit people concerned about food, medicine, transportation, and other industries of civic concern.
Note that most Law Libraries are Federal Depository Libraries. That may be why the ABA is promoting it, not out of a sense of the common weal.
This also serves the public good.
However, it may have a huge loophole. When a law references a standard, it references a particular edition of the standard. Is a proposed revision part of the public law? I guess it depends on how enabling legislation is written.
Overall, I feel the proposal is reasonable. If ABA passes it, will Congress?
In addition to the resolution there are 17 pages of background and discussion.
Read the discussion which points out that there is a need for meaningful access. What may be perceived as reasonable in the context of the examples mentioned would be unreasonable in the context of building regulations.
The formal resolution is flawed but the discussion gives a much better flavor of what should be.
So from your point of view a citizen who wanted to read the building code would have to read it at the counter of the building department or spend hundreds of dollars to buy a copy from the publisher. Is this meaningful access?
Do you have access to all of the standards you reference in your specification sections? You should but you probably do not because you do not want to pay a lot of money.
Most of the Federal Depository Libraries in California are classified as selective. I assume that this means they do not have all the standards. So where is the meaningful access.
Some Congressional action may be needed but the basic issue will likely be resolved by the courts not the congress since the legal precedents are based on constitutional law. The ABA resolution will influence future court cases. Then Congress will likely have to pass legislation regarding how the standards developing organizations will be compensated.
The discussion points to the Veeck case which established that for building codes in the Fifth Federal Circuit there is no copyright on adopted building codes. What needs to happen is for the issue to be addressed by other Federal Circuit courts or by the US Supreme Court.
Two great sources of standards cited in public law:
public.resource.org
law.resource.org