Message 00237: Re: Hyperlaw on open access to district court filings
He does, however, seem to be making a good argument with respect to
the fact that inconsistent ad-hoc systems by the individual courts to
publish their opinions are far inferior to a fairly simple
modification to CM/ECF/PACER that simply provided free public
access. Notably, the argument here is only for free public access to
the *opinions* and not the full set of case documents. He is right
that although in theory one should be able to access recent opinions
for free via PACER, many of the documents are not flagged as such and
thus incur charges.
--
Stephen Schultze
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society
xxxxxxx@cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Sep 12, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Carl Malamud wrote:
I stay out of their way. Sugarman has a big problem feeling he has
not received his proper due or proper financial rewards, and for
some reason he seems to blame me for part of that. (For example,
Markoff said his first attempt at cracking case law "failed" and
Alan seemed to think I was responsible for that assessment.)
Their argument is an interesting one. It is like using FOIA to get
a big product. I don't think it is effective ... draining pacer
and getting an installed base gives you standing. Just whining
about what they should be doing makes you a supplicant. I'd much
rather have eyeballs and a big archive and then wait for the right
moment to engage their bureaucracy.
I don't the FOIA/public right approach is going to work with the
Judicial Conference. It doesn't address the existing mentality,
which is that PACER costs money and therefore they need to charge.
It is like using the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference to
address the issue. It just doesn't take into account the real
institutional structure, which is a subcommittee of judges on the
IT subcommittee who have a whole lot invested in this big arcane
system they built.
But, some low-level harassment like this is ok. I just won't go
anywhere near anything Alan is doing because he is so volatile.
Carl
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Stephen Schultze wrote:
I am not a fan of Hyperlaw, given their position in the Jurisline
case, but this back-and-forth is very interesting:
http://www.hyperlaw.com/topics/2008/2008-08-19-comment-judcial-
conference-to-consider-archive.html
See, in particular, their initial letter (which is linked from the
above).
Carl, do you have opinions on the arguments presented here?
--
Stephen Schultze
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society
xxxxxxx@cyber.law.harvard.edu