The CP is both over- and under-inclusive, creating a wide variety of problems.

Emily S. Bremer, “On the Cost of Private Standards in Public Law,” Kansas Law Review, https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20310/5-Bremer_FinalPDFSheridan.pdf?sequence=1

Stripping copyright protection for incorporated materials is a poor solution to the public access problem: it would be both under- and overinclusive and would create new problems of its own. It would be underinclusive because it would not address the need for public access during the rulemaking stage, before a material is incorporated by reference and becomes law. It would be over-inclusive because it would punish the many private publishers that already provide free online access. Indeed, in the public debate over this issue, many erroneously convey the impression that copyright is synonymous with for-pay access.95 Those who advocate for stripping incorporated standards of copyright protection also overlook the potential public benefits of preserving copyright. It provides an incentive for private standards development, funding the development of essential standards that convey significant public benefits.96 If not through fees for published standards, the public will have to pay the significant costs of standards development through some other mechanism. Copyright also provides the standards developer with the legal right and incentive to ensure that third parties are not disseminating erroneous or incomplete versions of its standards. Finally, if the government stripped copyright protection for incorporated materials, whether through legislation or litigation, affected copyright owners may have a viable takings claim.97