Standards copyrights hang by a thread.
The Pro Codes Act—S. 4145, if you’re scoring at home—hit the Senate floor again on March 19. Senators Jon Cornyn, Chris Coons, Mazie Hirono, and Thom Tillis dusted it off, claiming it’ll keep copyright alive for safety standards baked into law. Just post ‘em free online, they say, and poof—protection intact. Simple, right?
But here’s the rub. This bill’s been bounced around Congress like a bad check—House, Senate, multiple sessions, zero wins. Now opponents, led by heavyweights like ASME, are howling. Their beef? Mandating free online posting guts copyrights, slashes revenue, and starves the standards development organizations (SDOs) that churn out these bibles of safety.
ASME’s Tom Costabile didn’t mince words.
“rushing this measure forward again without addressing these fundamental flaws is not prudent governance, but rather a gamble with economic strength, national security, and public safety.”
He’s got a point—data backs it. SDOs like NFPA and ICC pour millions into consensus-building: experts volunteer time, testing labs verify claims, updates roll yearly. Revenue from sales? That’s the fuel. ASME pegs their annual output at standards worth billions in prevented disasters. Strip that, and you’re betting on taxpayer bailouts or—worse—Chinese knockoffs filling the void.
Pro Codes Act: Free Access or Innovation Killer?
Sponsors paint it rosy: no more paywalls for laws citing these codes. Public Knowledge’s Meredith Rose flips the script, calling it a “naked attempt to put laws that impact every citizen behind a paywall.” Their counter? Those “free” portals SDOs would build are data traps—non-searchable, ADA-hostile, harvesting your info just to read fire codes.
Look, the market dynamics scream caution. Global standards trade hits $20 billion yearly (ISO figures). U.S. SDOs lead because they’ve got skin in the game—private cash keeps ‘em sharp. Free-ride it, and quality dips. Remember the 1990s HTML wars? W3C went open; proprietary players like Netscape crashed. But standards ain’t browser plugins—they’re rebar specs saving lives in earthquakes.
Public Knowledge and 22 allies push back hard. Re:Create’s Brandon Butler nails it:
“privatizing and commercializing laws would only create barriers to compliance, increasing the risk of violations and unsafe practices for Americans.”
Fair. Laws should be free. Yet courts have ruled: incorporate by reference, and edicts doctrine kicks in—public domain. Pro Codes flips that, letting SDOs keep copyright via portals. R Street’s Wayne T. Brough calls it a “rebuke of court rulings,” noting those portals flop on machine-reading tech businesses crave for compliance.
One twist the bill’s spin ignores: historical parallel to music sampling. Early 2000s, labels locked down snippets; creativity exploded anyway via Creative Commons. SDOs could pivot—freemium models, grants—but they’re wedded to the old sales playbook. My bet? This forces evolution, not extinction.
Why Do SDOs Need Copyright Cash?
Numbers don’t lie. NFPA’s Jim Pauley touts a 125-year system costing taxpayers zilch. ICC’s John Belcik echoes: efficient, volunteer-driven. Keith Kupferschmid of Copyright Alliance warns:
“Without effective copyright protections, there is a grave risk that these organizations will no longer be able to produce the high-quality codes and standards that the public and lawmakers have come to rely on.”
Spot on—SDOs aren’t charities. ASME’s Costabile flags the nightmare: foreign adversaries hijacking standards, taxpayers footing dev costs now privately borne. U.S. exports $1.5 trillion in compliant goods yearly; weak standards erode that edge.
But opponents overplay the doom. ARL gripes about reversing edicts doctrine, yet the bill’s carve-out—free web access—threads the needle. Portals could standardize: open APIs, searchable PDFs. Hype aside, it’s not Armageddon; it’s disruption. SDOs’ $500M+ revenue pool shrinks 20-30%? They’d adapt, like publishers did post-Google Books.
Critics like Rose slam the portals as silos. True enough—early versions were clunky. But mandate machine-readable formats? Now we’re talking real public good without torching copyrights.
Does the Pro Codes Act Stand a Chance This Time?
History says nah. Four tries, zero traction. Bipartisan sponsors help—Cornyn (R), Coons (D)—but Senate gridlock loves niche IP fights. Midterms loom; lawmakers chase headlines, not plumbing codes.
Market verdict? Stalemate favors status quo. SDOs lobby hard—$10M+ annual spend. Public interest groups punch above weight online. Prediction: stalls again, morphs into compromise (subsidies for open access?). Don’t hold your breath for passage before 2026.
The real play? Congress probes pilots—fund a few SDOs for free tiers, track quality metrics. Data wins arguments. Without it, this is theater.
And that’s the analyst’s edge: Pro Codes tests if America’s standards supremacy survives openness. Spoiler— it will, but not without scars.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: Common Paper’s Gerri 2.0 Bets Big on Speed—But the Real Play Is Legal AI Partnerships
- Read more: Privacy Groups Blast FTC’s Lax Grip on Kids’ Online Age Checks
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Pro Codes Act?
It’s a Senate bill to protect copyrights on safety standards incorporated into law, as long as they’re free online.
Why oppose the Pro Codes Act?
Critics say it keeps laws paywalled via flawed portals, risking public safety and access.
Will Pro Codes Act pass Congress?
Doubtful—it’s failed multiple times; expect more debate than action.
