Page:ASTM v. PRO (D.D.C. 2022).pdf/176

 incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of ASTM C5-79 are relevant for compliance with the regulation.
 * 1) * First Factor : There is no indication that Defendant stands to profit from republishing this standard; Defendant’s apparent purpose is to inform the public about the law and facilitate public debate. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449; Def’s 2d Mot. at 16. Defendant’s “attempt to freely distribute” this standard, the text of which has been incorporated by reference into law, “qualifie[s] as a use that further[s] the purposes of the fair use defense.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449. However, the court finds that the incorporated standard does not provide information essential for a private entity to comprehend its legal duties, but rather is incorporated as a reference procedure. Accordingly, “while knowing the content of this incorporated standard might help inform one’s understanding of the law,” it “is not essential to complying with any legal duty,” and thus, Defendant’s use is less transformative and “its wholesale copying, in turn, less justified.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 450.
 * 2) * Second Factor : The “express text of the law falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 451. Here, the text published by Defendant is identical to text that was incorporated into law without limitation, such that “the consequence of the incorporation by reference is virtually indistinguishable from a situation in which the standard had been expressly copied into law.” Id. at 452. Accordingly, “this factor weighs heavily in favor of fair use.” Id.
 * 3) * Third Factor : The incorporating regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of the text in ASTM C5-79 are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of the standard are relevant for regulatory compliance, suggesting that “a greater amount of the standard’s text might be fairly reproduced.” Id.
 * 4) * Fourth Factor : Defendant’s reproductions have not had a “substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the originals,” nor have Plaintiffs shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a meaningful likelihood of future harm.” Memo Op. at 30–36 (internal quotation and citation marks omitted).
 * 5) * Conclusion : Defendant may fairly reproduce the text of ASTM C5-79 (1997) in its entirety.
 * 6) ASTM C564 1970 (1982):
 * 7) *Defendant identifies 24 C.F.R. § (Parts 200 to 499) (2005) as the incorporating by reference regulation, see Becker Decl. ¶ 57, Ex. 90 at 18, which incorporates ASTM C564-70 for 24 C.F.R. § Part 200, Subpart S. See 24 C.F.R. § (Parts 200 to 499). While the regulation incorporates ASTM C564-70, not the 1982 version that Defendant published, the text of the two standards is identical. See Pls. 2d SMF ¶ 35; Def. Statement of Disputed Facts at ¶ 35 (no objection); Def. Mot. at 10 (citing Def. 2d SMF ¶ 84). The regulation does not specify that only certain provisions of ASTM C564-70 are incorporated by reference into law, nor does it indicate which specific provisions of ASTM C564-70 are relevant for compliance with the regulation.
 * 8) * First Factor : There is no indication that Defendant stands to profit from republishing this standard; Defendant’s apparent purpose is to inform the public about the law and