Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2020).pdf/29

 violations,” which heightened the due process concerns. See id. at 734–35. The court viewed BOCA’s normal prerogative to limit copying of its works as inconsistent with due process in this context: “We cannot see how this aspect of copyright protection can be squared with the right of the public to know the law to which it is subject. We are, therefore, far from persuaded that BOCA’s virtual authorship of the Massachusetts building code entitles it to enforce a copyright monopoly over when, where, and how the Massachusetts building code is to be reproduced and made publicly available.” Id. at 735.

While the First Circuit found it “hard to see how the public'spublic’s [sic] essential due process right of free access to the law (including a necessary right freely to copy and circulate all or part of a given law for various purposes), can be reconciled with the exclusivity afforded a private copyright holder” and had “serious doubts as to BOCA’s ability to prevail,” it stopped short of explicitly holding that there had been no actionable infringement because the controversy had not been fully briefed and the model building code at issue did not fit neatly into the Government Edicts doctrine. See id. at 736. The case