Federal Courts Making It More Expensive To Access Records, Even As They're Swimming In Cash
from the the-public-domain-is-expensive dept
The Federal Court's PACER system is really quite misguided. It's the system that the federal courts use to distribute judicial records (court filings, rulings, etc.), but rather than making that info available to the public, it's basically locked up behind a paywall, and it costs people 8 cents per page to download documents. Well, it did cost 8 cents per page. They've just announced that they're jacking up the fees to 10 cents per page, and that can add up pretty quickly when accessing a lot of court documents or some rather long filings or rulings.While Harlan Yu and Tim Lee helped create RECAP to free up court documents, and that has helped make some of this material more widely available, it's still limited. And, in fact, some courts have expressed concerns about RECAP and told lawyers not to use it. And even though the official policy of the US courts is that they're fine with RECAP, it appears not everyone in the court system agrees. EFF lawyer Michael Barclay recently alerted me to the fact that the PACER system for the Western District of NY has a warning on its query page about RECAP, saying:
The court would like to make CM/ECF filers aware of certain security concerns relating to a software application or .plug-in. called RECAP, which was designed by a group from Princeton University to enable the sharing of court documents on the Internet.Of course, with this price hike, one wonders if the courts are really concerned about "security" or if they're concerned about losing out on a big chunk of cash that comes into the courts thanks to PACER. Apparently, that cash is being used for all sorts of things, way outside of what's allowed. The law that authorizes PACER to charge, makes it clear that it can only charge "reasonable fees" and then only to the extent necessary to fund the working of the system:
Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository. RECAP captures District and Bankruptcy Court documents, but has not yet incorporated Appellate Court functionality. At this time, RECAP does not appear to provide users with access to restricted or sealed documents. Please be aware that RECAP is "open-source" software, which can be freely obtained by anyone with Internet access and modified for benign or malicious purposes, such as facilitating unauthorized access to restricted or sealed documents. Accordingly, CM/ECF filers are reminded to be diligent about their computer security practices to ensure that documents are not inadvertently shared or compromised.
The court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will continue to analyze the implications of RECAP or related-software and advise you of any ongoing or further concerns.
The Judicial Conference may, only to the extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees, pursuant to sections 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932 of title 28, United States Code, for collection by the courts under those sections for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.And yet, reports have shown that PACER already collects a lot more money than is needed to run the system. And this price hike will only increase that. And while some of that money is going to fund additional technology in the courtroom, it's not clear that this is a legal or even best use of funds.
One example is a courtroom renovation one judge described at a 2010 conference. He said that as a result of PACER fees, "every juror has their own flatscreen monitors," and there are also monitors for members of the public to see. His courtroom also got the latest audio technology. "We just put in new audio so that people—I'd never heard of this before—but it actually embeds the speakers inside of the benches in the back of the courtroom and inside counsel tables so that the wood benches actually perform as amplifiers," the judge said.Not that we're against better technology in court, but it's not clear this is the best use of funds, when collecting less money but making the information more widely available might better serve the public interest.
And, really, you have to wonder why the court system needs PACER in the first place. In this age of easy and free delivery of information, why can't the courts release that content for free, and charge people just for paper printouts? And, as Tim Lee's article points out, there seem to be much better ways to handle such a distribution of content:
For example, there isn't just one PACER website for the whole country. Instead, there are actually around 200 separate PACER websites, each serving a different judicial district. Consolidating those 200 servers into a single website hosted from a modern data center would improve the user experience and dramatically reduce IT costs.
Indeed, Yu argued that the very concept of charging for copies of public records is misguided. He suggested that instead of jacking up fees in order to fund the development of a more elaborate PACER site, the courts should publish their raw data and allow private parties, from Google to the Internet Archive, to build websites using that data.
"Congress needs to consider funding PACER out of general appropriations," Yu told Ars. "It's really shutting people out from being able to learn the laws that they need to abide by in our society." Of course, if PACER were run in a cost-effective matter, and without a paywall, it would cost a lot less than $100 million.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: federal courts, fees, pacer, public access
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh Noes - open source - everyone panic!
That's some scary stuff right there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It sounds more like they are charging appropriately, considering the other costs involved in legal action, and putting that money to work to help speed to process overall and to make sure that the best technology is available for all cases.
It seems like a win all around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And by admire, I mean disdain and abhore, which I believe are synonyms....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You also don't think that laws should available to anyone just those who can pay for it right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But even more importantly... how can you defend any increase in fees that's not directly tied to administration costs that makes it more difficult for you to know what laws you're expected to obey? The US wasn't founded as a nation of "secret" laws. We shouldn't have to pay to know what is and is not legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Has anyone seen why they want to charge more? Is there a central trust fund that this goes to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The PACER system allows each party to a case a "free look." You get an email to your registered address with a link to the document. Click the link and you have the document in PDF format to save locally and do what you want with... FREE OF CHARGE. Once you have the document via the free look you don't need to pay again for anything you choose to do with your copy.
You only have to pay if you need to go back and view documents via PACER again, if you want to view documents in cases where you are not a party, or to run reports to extract data from the court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Second; why charge per page, or even document, at all? Wouldn't it be more sane to charge a subscription fee, or something like that?
Then again, the only sane way of doing this is to not have a fee at all. One of the core basics of democracy is to allow the people to keep an eye on the courts, and make sure that they don't go bonkers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No killing it now, it has learned how to grow.
Also, PACER has a low amount, I think it is $10 a quarter you can access for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pacer
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 80?
"Your Honor"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dear Pacer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Most of the big cases (and the ones most likely to be cited in these sorts of legal actions) are online, and have been referenced over and over again. If you can't find them, you truly have failed.
Perhaps the real issue here is that people who have absolutely nothing to do with the legal system are business complaining about it, rather than actually doing something productive with their time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Man, can you imagine how awesome it would be when you bench, the table in front of you and every object in the room is the booming voice of the judge? I mean seriously, I am considering dropping my current career and running off to law-school just so I can have such god-like powers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because I'm not a lawyer or attorney at law, I have no access to public records, no matter how little or how much it is. I can't look up and reference all of the articles and decisions made in the history of MY country of birth because I didn't pay a fee.
And for that small injustice, when I want to change my naive notion that more access to information allows me to make better decisions, you decide to try to dismiss it by saying "you're whining?"
Are you sure that's what you want to say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
There is very little scanning going on at any of the PACER courts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]