
Keeping “Free Law” Free - thinkcomp
http://www.benedelman.org/news/012218-1.html
======
walterbell
[https://www.aallnet.org/Blogs/spectrum-
blog/45407.html](https://www.aallnet.org/Blogs/spectrum-blog/45407.html)

 _”In 2008, computers at the Library for the U.S. Courts of the Seventh
Circuit in Chicago provided free access to PACER (Public Access to Court
Electronic Records), which normally cost eight cents per page. Swartz loaded a
script onto a library computer, which automatically downloaded PACER records
every three seconds and uploaded them to a cloud server. Over a couple of
weeks, he downloaded about 20% of the PACER database. [Aaron] Swartz provided
the PACER documents to Public.Resource.Org. The FBI 's investigation of this
incident eventually ended without charges. Swartz continued to promote free
public access to PACER documents by working with RECAP and PlainSite.”_

~~~
crankylinuxuser
Do note, with PACER, making a search counts as a page. So does clicking on the
second page of results - another page. So does clicking the print button.
Another page.

------
morisy
> One, I don’t know that RECAP’s expenses need to be particularly high. Open
> source software development often does not entail paying developers anything
> at all.

It's incredibly hard to run an open source project like this with zero paid
developers. I've done it! And others have too, but it's nearly impossible to
pull off in the long term and having paid staff with some kind of recurring
revenue is almost essential to keeping these kinds of projects alive and
growing.

Sure, you can launch that kind of project and run it for a few years, but over
time you have customer support queries to deal with, obnoxious bugs that take
hours to ferret out, uptime and DevOps challenges that will ultimately
otherwise fall under one volunteer who, if unpaid, has a day job and outside
commitments and gets sick or bored or run down.

> With the right motivation including public praise, some people may be
> inclined to donate their skills. Certainly RECAP needs new features and
> improvements from time to time, but most such improvements should last
> indefinitely once built, reducing RECAP’s ongoing expenses.

What's the model here for having an organization with zero expenses run this
kind of broad-based public good?

It's very easy to underestimate what it takes projects like RECAP to operate,
or to think that open source contributions can bring costs close to zero, but
the reality is that these projects are very hard to keep running on the cheap,
which is why we keep seeing small projects — even when that get a lot of
praise and acclaim — shutter.

And relatively speaking, RECAP is an incredibly cheap project already: It's
got one full-time staffer, and in 2016 its expenses were under $100,000:

[https://free.law/pdf/taxes/2016-990-EZ.pdf](https://free.law/pdf/taxes/2016-990-EZ.pdf)

RECAP is still making its data broadly accessible for free, while also trying
to find some kind of sustainability model beyond a hope and a prayer.
Donations and grants come and go, and while open source contributions can be
helpful they can almost never keep a centralized service like this running for
the long-term.

~~~
thinkcomp
The model is RECAP before Free Law Project took over. It was backed by
Princeton (which didn't spend much), had far fewer expenses (certainly no one
got paid $90K a year; it was a grad student project), and moved forward code-
wise via the coding challenge my foundation sponsored which cost one-fifth as
much. See [https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-
memo...](https://free.law/2013/04/02/two-recap-grants-awarded-in-memory-of-
aaron-swartz/).

The problem here is that RECAP may need money, but it is not being transparent
about how it gets its money and is misleading users as a result.

Mike has made deliberate choices about how he runs FLP. I run Think Computer
Foundation and PlainSite, which does the same thing as CourtListener.
PlainSite is financially self-sustaining. CourtListener is not. There are
alternatives to FLP's new "model."

------
piker
This change makes a ton of sense if RECAP wants to make these documents
accessible. Aggregate the data and make it easy for wholesale users. Soon
enough, numerous sites/services will crop up, likely funded by ads,
subscription fees or non-profit status, competing on usability for retail
consumers. That will drive down profits and promote UI development and
curation. Compare, e.g., ERISA and EDGAR data.

~~~
aplorbust
"Soon enough, numerous sites/services will crop up, likely funded by ads,
subscription fees or non-profit status, competing on usability for retail
consumers."

Will they compete with the Internet Archive, which does not need to serve ads
or charge fees?

The authors question remains unanswered. Is there any reason for the data to
now be withheld from the Internet Archive?

This comment appears to be an appeal for "competition" that involves
eliminating a competitor: the Internet Archive.

But consider that there are some users who prefer the Internet Archive for
usability. Perhaps this is why the author writes about this on his blog.
Anyone wishing to compete on usability can copy the data from Internet Archive
and reformat it as they wish.

In the same way, there are some users who prefer EDGAR for SEC filings versus
alternatives in terms of usability. Anyone can copy the data from EDGAR,
repackage it and then compete on usability.

The existing source of the public data may present the data in a format free
from Javascript tracking, third party advertising, paywalls and "free apis"
that would allow access to be _limited and optionally denied_ (contradicts
stated objective of "making these documents accessible"; instead seeks to
_limit_ access). For some users, being free from these impediments makes the
data highly accessible.

With respect to those users, any new proposed source must compete with the
existing source. Not to mention the potential it allows for any others who may
wish to reformat/repackage the data.

When the people behind the new proposed source call for the discontinuation of
the original source, this raises a red flag.

Eliminating a competitor is not a prerequisite for "competition".

Finally, the suggestion of "non-profit status" is interesting.

Lets say someone who enjoys programming wants to start a project/company that
repackages donated public information in a way that _she believes_ is more
usable than the alternatives.

Lets assume the costs of doing this are not that much, mainly just her time.

If _she charges fees to users or advertisers_ for access, her income from this
effort might exceed her costs.

She might reinvest the surplus into the project. She might pay herself a
salary.

Is there a limit on how much she can pay herself while the business still
remains tax-exempt?

~~~
aplorbust
In fairness to free.law which appears to provide unrestricted bulk access and
uses open formats, what stops anyone, including the blog author, from
downloading the bulk data, and then uploading to the Internet Archive?

To some users, it is actually preferable to have bulk access to raw data than
thousands of individual html pages on a www server. Because for some it may be
less work to transform the raw data into some other format, e.g., 1000s of
pages of html, than it is to scrape all those html pages from a www server,
process and store them in a _searchable_ format.

Consider raw text versus PDF. PDF may look great but text is more flexible and
more easily searchable. While its easy to convert text to PDF for reading,
converting from PDF to text for searching is fraught with difficulty and a
high margin for error.

If one accepts

    
    
       more difficult: PDF -> text 
       less difficult: text -> PDF
    

then it stands to reason that text is the more preferable format to start
with. Because its _both_ easy to search and easy to generate PDF for
aesthetics and reading.

------
rayiner
The misleading thing about the “free law” angle is that PACER does not record
“the law.” It’s a system for accessing parties’ legal filings. Opinions
rendered by courts, which are “law” are generally posted on the courts’
websites: [http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges-
info/opinions](http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions). PACER is a
service that’s primarily used by litigants that’s value is primarily to
litigants. Litigants who need PACER access but can’t afford it are given free
access.

It’s not unreasonable for the government to charge a user fee to access it,
like all the other kinds of user fees the government charges for public
services. (Indeed, the government charges substantial filing fees for availing
oneself of the courts in the first place.)

~~~
AskewEgret
This cannot be emphasized enough.

Accessing PACER from a courthouse is free. Accessing PACER for a case you are
involved in is free. Getting judicial opinions from PACER is free. If you
convince a judge that the cost of PACER is a burden to you, it is free. And
finally, PACER doesn't actually charge you anything until you owe them more
than $15 in a 3-month period - it is not cumulative: if your balance is less
than $15, it goes to 0.

~~~
nkw
> Accessing PACER from a courthouse is free.

... other than the half day you had to take off work, transportation to the
courthouse and fees for printing out an electronic document -- and that is if
you are local. What if I want to get a 'free' document in a court that is
2,000 miles away?

> Accessing PACER for a case you are involved in is free.

This is false. If you are an ECF user you theoretically can get "one free
view" of a document as they are filed in a case you are a party, however this
rarely works so you end up having to pay the pacer fee anyway. You still have
to pay PACER fees anytime you view the docket, search, or view any document in
a "case you are involved in".

> Getting judicial opinions from PACER is free.

... a relative recent development and only covers some opinions.

> If you convince a judge that the cost of PACER is a burden to you, it is
> free.

Really? You have a citation for that? I'm sure I can convince at least one
federal judge my several thousand dollar a month pacer bill is a burden. That
would be great.

------
syzygetic
Very interesting topic, hadn't ever considered the possibility that the
availability of legal proceedings / documents might be something other than a
taxpayer-subsidized venture. It sure seems like that's the appropriate source
for funds to accomplish this.

~~~
maxxxxx
When I heard abut this the first time I also was surprised that this stuff is
not available for free. In a country governed by laws it should be one of the
most important things that the law is easily accessible to all people.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _one of the most important things that the law is easily accessible to all
> people_

As rayiner points out [1], court filings are not case law. Decisions, the only
component of a court's output that can properly be considered law, are
generally freely and publicly available.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16230803](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16230803)

~~~
maxxxxx
That's fine. I still think that if openness is a good thing then the legal
system should be one of the first places. Everything should go into a central
and open database.

~~~
arcbyte
I mean, they do already. The database is just the court records and you can go
to the courthouse and access them. That's how its been for centuries.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think it's time to take the records online.

