A House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing examined whether private organizations that develop safety codes retain enforceable copyright when those codes are incorporated by reference into law and considered the Pro Codes Act as a possible legislative response.

The hearing, held by the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet at 10:00 a.m. in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, brought witnesses from standards-developing organizations (SDOs), public-interest advocates, and legal groups. Witnesses listed included the president and CEO of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the CEO of the Copyright Alliance, the general counsel of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and a principal from a policy consulting firm. Committee contact information for Washington, D.C., was provided on the committee page.

Subcommittee Chair Rep. Darrell Issa framed the Pro Codes Act as a constitutional compromise that would preserve public access to law while permitting limits on copying; Ranking Member Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. emphasized the conflict between court rulings that laws cannot be privately owned and SDOs’ claims that copyright revenue funds standards work. Written submissions and record materials included cross-partisan opposition from Rep. Zoe Lofgren and an opposition letter co-signed by Rep. Thomas Massie. Lobbying disclosures showed substantial spending by standards organizations and by UpCodes, the startup that challenged incorporation-by-reference practices in court.

The Pro Codes Act, reintroduced in the Senate and considered in the hearing, would require nonprofit SDOs to make standards that are incorporated by reference into federal, state, or local law available for free online viewing as a condition of receiving copyright protection, while preserving SDOs’ ability to charge for copies, redistribution, or commercial use. Proponents say the bill would resolve conflicting court decisions, guarantee public online access for reading incorporated standards, and protect the nonprofit, consensus-based funding model that supports creation and updating of safety codes covering areas such as building safety, wildfire prevention, and emergency response. Opponents say the bill would condition copyright protection on free public access and thereby threaten revenues that fund standards development.

Several SDO representatives argued that removing or weakening copyright protection would jeopardize funding for standards development and thereby harm public safety and U.S. industrial leadership. NFPA stated that about 70 percent of its revenue comes from selling and licensing its codes and linked that revenue to reductions in fire incidents. Representatives of ASME, the American Welding Society, SAE International, and other SDOs warned that forcing organizations to provide free access as a condition of copyright could materially weaken or destroy their copyright protections, damage the consensus-driven, expert-led process, increase taxpayer costs, disrupt supply chains, and threaten sectors including mobility, aerospace, manufacturing, defense, and national resilience. A legal policy expert testified that the bill would transform copyright from a stable property right into a revocable license tied to government use, a change the expert associated with risks to investment and technical quality. A geopolitical analyst cautioned that undermining the U.S. system for funding standards could create strategic vulnerabilities.

Some witnesses and submissions opposed the Pro Codes Act on constitutional or practical grounds. John Delli Venneri of ASME, while representing an SDO, said he opposed a one-size-fits-all mandate to post standards online because it would allow thousands of jurisdictions to determine whether copyrighted material must be made free. Jonathan Band of Policybandwidth, representing public-access interests, argued the bill would be unconstitutional under the government edicts doctrine and urged that agencies instead incorporate standards directly into regulations and publish full texts on official websites. The Copyright Alliance described conflicting court decisions and urged congressional clarity.

The hearing occurred against a backdrop of recent federal appellate decisions that have affected access to incorporated standards. The D.C. Circuit in ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org and the Third Circuit in ASTM v. UpCodes found that posting standards incorporated into law online likely qualifies as fair use; the Third Circuit’s decision affirmed a lower court and applied the four statutory fair-use factors, describing the publisher’s purpose as transformative, treating laws and incorporated standards as standing at the edge of copyright protection, finding verbatim copying necessary for public-law access, and requiring proof of actual market harm by rights holders. Those rulings have increased pressure for congressional action and may reduce the need for prolonged litigation, while the merits stage of ASTM v. UpCodes at the district-court level remained unresolved.

The central legal question is whether private SDOs retain enforceable copyright over standards after those standards are incorporated into law—a determination that will affect whether SDOs can continue charging for access and licensing or whether incorporated standards must be freely available to the public. The Pro Codes Act did not advance in the prior Congress; the subcommittee hearing was presented as a step toward renewed markup efforts, and observers noted substantial lobbying and divided views across and within parties. Ongoing developments include further litigation, potential legislative markup, and continued policy debate over the balance between public access to law and the funding model that supports standards development.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Short answer: The article is news journalism that explains a policy and legal dispute but provides almost no directly usable instructions for an ordinary reader. It is informative about who said what and the stakes involved, but it largely leaves readers without concrete actions, practical guidance, or deeper tools to respond.

Actionable information The piece contains no clear step‑by‑step guidance a typical person can follow immediately. It names legislation (the Pro Codes Act), court cases (ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org and ASTM v. UpCodes), stakeholders (standards‑developing organizations, UpCodes, members of Congress), and general positions (SDOs worry about lost revenue; public‑access advocates push for free posting). Those references are real and could point a motivated reader toward further research, but the article does not tell an ordinary person what to do next: it does not give direct links to the bills or court dockets, explain how to submit comments to Congress, advise affected professionals how to respond, or offer practical steps for finding whether a particular code is freely available. In short, it supplies names and facts but not a clear, usable action plan.

Educational depth The article offers useful background on the legal and policy conflict: it highlights the tension between copyright law and the principle that laws must be publicly accessible, and it notes recent appellate decisions that increased pressure for congressional clarification. However, it stays at the level of description rather than analysis. It reports claims—such as NFPA’s statement that about 70 percent of revenue comes from sales and that revenue is linked to fewer fire incidents—without critically examining the evidence, methodology, or causation behind those numbers. The article does not explain in detail how incorporation by reference works in regulatory drafting, how fair use analyses are applied by courts, or the legal doctrines (for example, the government edicts doctrine) beyond naming them. For a reader who wants to understand the legal mechanisms or evaluate the validity of the revenue‑safety claims, the article does not provide enough explanation or source evaluation.

Personal relevance For most readers the story is indirectly relevant. It could materially affect people who work with or depend on technical safety standards: building inspectors, architects, engineers, code officials, contractors, municipal governments, public‑safety professionals, and businesses that must comply with incorporated standards. For those groups, the question of whether incorporated standards must be freely available online matters for access, compliance costs, and enforcement. For the average citizen with no stake in those areas, the article is more abstract—it concerns principles about access to law rather than immediate money, health, or safety decisions. The piece does not break down who specifically should care or how they might be affected now versus after potential legislation or litigation outcomes.

Public service function The article informs readers about an important public‑policy debate that touches on access to law and public safety. That is a public‑interest topic. But it fails to provide practical public‑service content such as instructions on how to find whether a given code is freely available, how to request a public copy from a government office, or how to participate in the legislative process. It also does not offer safety guidance or emergency information. As a result, it serves more to report than to enable action or protect the public.

Practical advice quality There is essentially no practical advice an ordinary reader can realistically follow. The report suggests positions and consequences but does not offer realistic next steps for affected professionals, local governments, or citizens. For example, it does not instruct readers how to verify whether a standard they rely on is under copyright, how to obtain permission or a license, how to engage with standards bodies, or how to contact their representatives about the bill.

Long‑term impact The article helps the reader recognize an ongoing legal conflict that could have long‑term consequences for access to safety codes and for the business models of standards organizations. That awareness is useful for long‑range planning for professionals in affected fields. But because the article leaves the legal question unresolved and does not suggest practical adaptations, it does not give concrete tools for readers to plan or change behavior now to avoid future problems.

Emotional and psychological impact The tone is mostly informational and reports contentious exchanges, lobbying, and cross‑partisan opposition. It may cause concern among professionals who rely on standards, but the article does not stoke sensational fear. However, by reporting competing claims (loss of revenue will harm safety versus the public’s right to access the law) without deep evaluation, it may leave readers unsettled and uncertain about what to believe and what to do.

Clickbait or ad driven language The article reads like policy reporting rather than clickbait. It does not appear to use sensational headlines or exaggerated claims for effect. It does, however, present partisan quotes and lobby spending figures that draw attention without deeply substantiating the underlying factual claims.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide The piece misses several straightforward chances to be more useful. It could have: - Explained how incorporation by reference works in practice and what steps a public agency must take to make a code enforceable. - Summarized the legal standards courts use in fair use analyses and how the D.C. and Third Circuit opinions reasoned about public access. - Pointed to concrete resources: how to find the text of the Pro Codes Act, how to check court dockets for the appellate decisions, how to access publicly posted standards or request them from a government office, and how to submit comments to Congress or contact representatives. - Evaluated the NFPA revenue and safety claims briefly or noted that independent verification would be needed.

Because the article raises a problem but gives no practical follow‑up, readers are left without reliable next steps.

Practical, realistic guidance you can use now If you want to act or better understand the issue without relying on more reporting, here are sensible, general steps grounded in basic reasoning that anyone can follow.

If you rely on technical codes or work in fields that use standards, identify which specific standards affect you and whether they are incorporated into law where you work. Check the text of local, state, or federal regulations; the regulation should list incorporated documents. If the standard is incorporated but not posted for free, contact the relevant agency that adopted the standard and ask how you can access the text they enforce. Keep written notes of any requests and responses.

If you are concerned about access in your community, contact your elected representatives politely and briefly. Explain how access to the text matters for your work, safety, or public transparency, and ask their position on legislation affecting access to incorporated standards. Request information about how they balance public access and the funding of standards development.

If you want to verify claims (for example, that a standards body’s revenue is tied to safety outcomes), treat single statements as starting points, not conclusions. Ask for or look for independent evidence: check publicly available annual reports for revenue breakdowns and consult independent studies about the relationship between code adoption/enforcement and safety outcomes. Note the difference between correlation and causation; stronger claims require clear methodology.

If you value public access to law, pursue practical low‑effort options that do not require winning the larger legal fight. Encourage agencies to incorporate standards by reference but include the full text in the adopting regulation or on the agency’s official website when legally possible. Attend public meetings of local code adoption committees or municipal councils where jurisdictions adopt standards, and raise the access concern there—local officials often control how they provide access.

If you are an organizer or advocate, build a simple strategy: identify stakeholders (industry users, safety advocates, public‑interest groups), gather a concise one‑page statement of the problem and desired outcome, and reach out to legislators or agency contacts with specific asks (for example, require posting of incorporated texts on the adopting agency’s website). Focus on achievable changes at the agency or municipal level while the legal and legislative process proceeds.

If you just want to follow the legal developments, check the appellate decisions by name in public court dockets and watch for the district‑court merits stage in ASTM v. UpCodes. Use primary sources (the court opinions and the bill text) rather than summaries when you need precision.

These steps use common sense, are realistic for most readers, and help translate the article’s reporting into practical action or further inquiry without relying on specialized legal or technical resources.

"presented the bill as a constitutional compromise and emphasized public access to laws while defending limitations on copying." This phrase both praises and defends the bill in one breath. It helps the bill look reasonable and balanced by pairing "constitutional compromise" with "public access," which makes limits on copying seem moderate. That framing favors the bill by making trade-offs sound fair instead of contested. It downplays conflict and steers the reader toward seeing the bill as legitimate and careful.

"witnesses for standards organizations warned that removing copyright protection would jeopardize funding for safety standards" The word "warned" frames the standards organizations as protectors and casts removal of copyright as dangerous. That strong verb pushes fear and helps the organizations' claim seem urgent. It favors the money-interest side by foregrounding risk without showing counterarguments in the same sentence. This slants sympathy toward the groups that earn revenue from codes.

"the National Fire Protection Association stating that about 70 percent of its revenue comes from selling and licensing its codes and linking that revenue to reductions in fire incidents." This sentence uses a precise percentage to give weight to a causal link between revenue and safety. The structure implies direct cause (money -> fewer fires) without showing evidence here. It nudges the reader to accept the organization's claim as fact and helps preserve the value of charging for codes. The wording elevates a single source's claim without balancing evidence.

"described conflicting court decisions and urged congressional clarity." The verb "urged" makes the Copyright Alliance sound reasonable and authoritative, pressing Congress to act. That cast of advocacy as a neutral call for "clarity" frames legislative action as the sensible fix. It favors intervention and presents the group's preference as a moderate solution rather than a self-interested ask.

"opposed the bill despite representing an SDO, arguing that a one-size-fits-all mandate to post standards online would improperly let thousands of jurisdictions decide whether copyrighted material must be made free." The phrase "despite representing an SDO" signals surprise and frames the speaker as an outlier, which makes his opposition seem more credible. That wording highlights internal disagreement among standards bodies and helps the position look principled. It subtly promotes the speaker's view as special or independent rather than routine.

"called the bill unconstitutional under the government edicts doctrine and urged agencies to incorporate standards directly into regulations and publish full texts on official websites." Using the legal phrase "unconstitutional under the government edicts doctrine" frames the opposition in strong legal terms. That makes the argument sound legally decisive rather than debatable. The paragraph pairs the constitutional claim with a practical alternative, steering readers to see rejection of the bill as both lawful and workable.

"The hearing included sharp exchanges over whether commercial reuse of freely available materials constitutes fair use." The adjective "sharp" primes readers to expect intense conflict, which heightens drama. That word frames the debate as adversarial and suggests deep disagreement, favoring a perception of controversy over calm deliberation. It emphasizes conflict rather than details or resolution.

"Cross-partisan opposition surfaced in the record, including documents submitted by Rep. Zoe Lofgren and an opposition letter co-signed with Rep. Thomas Massie, signaling resistance beyond typical party lines." The phrase "signaling resistance beyond typical party lines" highlights bipartisanship of opposition as notable, which frames the bill as broadly unpopular. This selection of facts steers readers to see the bill as unusual or extreme enough to unite different factions. It supports skepticism of the bill by emphasizing cross-party pushback.

"Lobbying disclosures showed substantial spending by standards organizations and by UpCodes, the startup that challenged incorporation-by-reference practices in court." The word "substantial" signals that money is a major force here, implying influence. That emphasizes the role of money and may make readers suspicious of motives. It frames the narrative as driven by funding, helping the view that vested financial interests shape the dispute.

"the Pro Codes Act did not advance in the prior Congress, and the subcommittee hearing was presented as a step toward renewed markup efforts" Saying the bill "did not advance" and that the hearing is merely "a step" frames the legislative effort as ongoing but not yet successful. This wording downplays immediacy or inevitability of passage and could reduce alarm or urgency. It helps readers interpret the situation as procedural rather than concluded.

"the pending district-court merits stage of ASTM v. UpCodes leaves the legal conflict unresolved." Using "leaves the legal conflict unresolved" underlines uncertainty and that courts have not settled the issue. That frames the problem as open and justifies continued debate or legislative action. It supports the narrative that resolution is still needed rather than implying finality.

"whether private organizations retain enforceable copyright over safety codes once those codes are incorporated into law, a question that will determine whether organizations that develop standards can continue charging for access or whether incorporated standards must be freely available to the public." This sentence frames the issue as a simple binary: either organizations keep charging or the standards must be free. That sets up a zero-sum choice and omits possible middle options (licenses, limited access, government purchases). The wording pushes the debate into a winner-takes-all frame and hides nuance about hybrid solutions.

The text contains a range of discernible emotions conveyed by speakers, witnesses, and the narrative tone. Concern appears strongly in descriptions from standards-developing organizations and some members of Congress; phrases such as “jeopardize funding for safety standards,” “about 70 percent of its revenue,” and linking revenue to “reductions in fire incidents” express fear that losing copyright income will harm public safety programs. This concern is intense because it ties financial loss to concrete safety outcomes, and it is used to prompt the reader to worry that removing copyright protection could have harmful, real-world consequences. Defensiveness and protectionism are present and moderately strong in the way SDOs and their representatives “warned that removing copyright protection would jeopardize funding” and “defended limitations on copying.” Those words show a desire to protect institutional interests and revenue streams, and they aim to make the reader accept restrictions as reasonable safeguards for safety work. Authority and legitimacy are signaled with formal, assertive language—references to “constitutional compromise,” “congressional clarity,” and appellate court decisions—giving a measured, serious tone; the strength of this emotion is moderate and serves to build trust in the institutions and legal processes involved, steering the reader toward seeing the issue as weighty and requiring careful resolution. Frustration and tension appear in descriptions of “sharp exchanges” and the “tension between court rulings that laws cannot be privately owned and standards organizations’ claims,” showing conflict between parties; this emotion is moderate and aims to create a sense that the debate is contested and unresolved, prompting the reader to perceive urgency and the need for decision. Opposition and resistance show up clearly and with moderate intensity where the record reveals “cross-partisan opposition” and specific lawmakers submitting opposing documents; this conveys that resistance is broad and not merely partisan, encouraging the reader to regard the bill as controversial and not settled. Defiance or principled dissent is notable in John Delli Venneri’s stance—“opposed the bill despite representing an SDO”—and in public-access advocates calling the bill “unconstitutional,” which carries a firm, somewhat forceful emotional tone; it seeks to persuade the reader that principled, legal objections exist beyond simple self-interest. Persuasive urgency is implied by procedural language such as “increased pressure for congressional action,” “a step toward renewed markup efforts,” and noting unresolved litigation; this conveys a moderate-to-strong urge to act now and nudges the reader toward seeing the situation as timely and consequential. Credibility and concern for fairness are present in the reporting of legal rulings and lobbying disclosures; the neutral, factual listing of cases and spending carries a restrained, factual emotion that bolsters the text’s seriousness and aims to persuade through evidence rather than rhetoric. Ambiguity and unresolved tension are woven throughout in phrases like “leaves the legal conflict unresolved” and “did not advance in the prior Congress”; this produces a subdued anxious feeling that the matter remains open and important, encouraging the reader to follow future developments. Finally, advocacy and moral framing appear in the public-access witness urging agencies to publish texts and labeling the bill unconstitutional under the “government edicts doctrine”; this introduces a moral-emotional element—concern for public access and rule-of-law principles—that is moderately strong and aims to inspire readers to favor transparency and legal clarity. Overall, emotional language and charged phrases are used to shape reader reaction: appeals to safety and funding create sympathy and concern for practical consequences, legal and constitutional claims seek to build trust in institutional processes or to challenge them, descriptions of conflict and urgency push the reader toward seeing the issue as contested and in need of action, and statements of broad opposition lend weight to the notion that the proposal is controversial. The writer uses several rhetorical tools to heighten these emotions. The text contrasts opposing positions—standards organizations’ warnings about safety funding versus public-access advocates’ constitutional objections—which sharpens the emotional stakes by setting safety and institutional survival against rights and public access. Specific figures and causal claims, such as “about 70 percent of its revenue” and “linking that revenue to reductions in fire incidents,” employ concrete detail to make fear and concern more vivid and believable. Repetition of legal case names and procedural phrases reinforces the sense of an ongoing, serious legal battle and increases perceived urgency. Strong verbs and nouns—“warned,” “jeopardize,” “defended,” “sharp exchanges,” “increased pressure,” “opposition”—signal conflict and danger more than neutral synonyms would, directing attention to risk and dispute. Presenting cross-partisan opposition and named lawmakers alongside lobbying expenditures invokes the reader’s sense of legitimacy and scale; these details make the controversy feel widespread and consequential. By combining concrete statistics, named actors, legal references, and contrasts between safety and access, the writing amplifies emotions of concern, defensiveness, and urgency to steer the reader toward treating the issue as important, contested, and deserving of careful action.