SDOs will be fine. All economic analysis flows neg, and other sources of revenue solve.
Klosek 24 – Director for Information Policy and Federal Relations at the Association of Research Libraries, former Director of the Center for Applied Public Research at Johns Hopkins University, M.A. in Public Policy from Johns Hopkins University.
Katherine Klosek, “No One Can Own the Law—So Why Is Congress Advancing a Bill to Extend Copyright to It?,” Association of Research Libraries, 04-19-2024, https://www.arl.org/blog/no-one-can-own-the-law-so-why-is-congress-advancing-a-bill-to-extend-copyright-to-it/
A related argument by supporters of the Pro Codes Act is that the SDOs provide a valuable service, and therefore they deserve a revenue stream in exchange for their contribution to the public good. But copyright law does not grant copyright to reward hard work (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). Further, the DC Circuit Court found that although Public.Resource.Org has been posting incorporated standards for 15 years, “the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any economic analysis showing that Public Resource’s activity has harmed any relevant market for their standards. To the contrary, ASTM’s sales have increased over that time.” The SDOs can also derive significant revenue from selling training materials and programs. SDOs do not need a copyright incentive; the development of standards advances the economic interests of their members.