5 ms·

That is incorrect based on PACER's own words. PACER has a free version, but the free version limits your ability to transfer to other bodies. Although I'm sure

That is incorrect based on PACER's own words. PACER has a free version, but the free version limits your ability to transfer to other bodies. Although I'm sure that gets people freaking out, that's hardly RECAP being "prohibited." But, really, even with a 100% populated RECAP, all lawyers use PACER for their real work. The fact that any joker in the world can upload documents to RECAP makes it unsuitable for anything you are going to put before a judge. RECAP is fine for bloggers, though.

thinkcomp 14y ago
Huh? "any joker in the world can upload documents to RECAP makes it unsuitable for anything you are going to put before a judge" == FALSE For those documents that have been uploaded, RECAP's database contains bit for bit the same exact documents that are on PACER and nothing more. It's verified using an SHA1 hash. For example, see the document entries for http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.docket.xml http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137.... PACER does not provide hashes, but if you are worried that a document might have been compromised you can always download it from PACER and run the hash yourself.
- daeken 14y ago
  How is that verified? Does PACER publish hashes or the like, so that RECAP can confirm that the documents are authentic? It seems pretty unlikely.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    He added to his comment to say that you can redownload all the documents from PACER to make sure none of them were altered. Which gets you absolutely nowhere. RECAP is the Wikipedia of law. Crowd-sourced, free, usually reliable -- but if you are relying on its accuracy as part of vigorously defending your client's interests to the best of your abilities, you have failed. EDIT: I think requiring PACER to provide SHA1 sums free-of-charge would probably be, on the whole, a good thing.
- danielweber 14y ago
  https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/#authenticity https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/#authenticity "How do I know that the documents provided by RECAP are genuine? Unfortunately, you don’t. We rely on RECAP users to donate documents to the repository." I.e., any joker in the world can upload what they want to RECAP. It's a very useful service, but any actual lawyer relying on RECAP instead of paying pennies to get the documents from PACER is probably committing malpractice on his clients.
fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Here, in PACER's own words. http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html "A fee exemption applies only for limited purposes. Any transfer of data obtained as the result of a fee exemption is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the court. Therefore, fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP. The prohibition on transfer of information received without fee is not intended to bar a quote or reference to information received as a result of a fee exemption in a scholarly or other similar work. "
- danielweber 14y ago
  Yes, thank you for posting exactly what I said. If you take out the words and meaning of "fee exemption" you get something close to what you said.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    It makes a slight problem for those who want to use RECAP in the manner suggested in OP's post.
- thinkcomp 14y ago
  I discuss the court's ridiculous disclaimer here: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=85 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=85
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Oh, I agree that it is ridiculous, almost Monty Python ridiculous. I hope that you are successful, I will probably participate, and thank you for doing something. I think it is ridiculous for there to be any paywall for court information to start with. I hope that something like Veeck v SBCC will someday be applied. http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
- esurc 14y ago

thinkcomp 14y ago

Huh? "any joker in the world can upload documents to RECAP makes it unsuitable for anything you are going to put before a judge" == FALSE For those documents that have been uploaded, RECAP's database contains bit for bit the same exact documents that are on PACER and nothing more. It's verified using an SHA1 hash. For example, see the document entries for http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137971/gov.uscourts.mad.137971.docket.xml http://ia700504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137.... PACER does not provide hashes, but if you are worried that a document might have been compromised you can always download it from PACER and run the hash yourself.

daeken 14y ago
How is that verified? Does PACER publish hashes or the like, so that RECAP can confirm that the documents are authentic? It seems pretty unlikely.
- danielweber 14y ago
  He added to his comment to say that you can redownload all the documents from PACER to make sure none of them were altered. Which gets you absolutely nowhere. RECAP is the Wikipedia of law. Crowd-sourced, free, usually reliable -- but if you are relying on its accuracy as part of vigorously defending your client's interests to the best of your abilities, you have failed. EDIT: I think requiring PACER to provide SHA1 sums free-of-charge would probably be, on the whole, a good thing.
danielweber 14y ago
https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/#authenticity https://www.recapthelaw.org/about/#authenticity "How do I know that the documents provided by RECAP are genuine? Unfortunately, you don’t. We rely on RECAP users to donate documents to the repository." I.e., any joker in the world can upload what they want to RECAP. It's a very useful service, but any actual lawyer relying on RECAP instead of paying pennies to get the documents from PACER is probably committing malpractice on his clients.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

Here, in PACER's own words. http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html "A fee exemption applies only for limited purposes. Any transfer of data obtained as the result of a fee exemption is prohibited unless expressly authorized by the court. Therefore, fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP. The prohibition on transfer of information received without fee is not intended to bar a quote or reference to information received as a result of a fee exemption in a scholarly or other similar work. "

danielweber 14y ago
Yes, thank you for posting exactly what I said. If you take out the words and meaning of "fee exemption" you get something close to what you said.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  It makes a slight problem for those who want to use RECAP in the manner suggested in OP's post.
thinkcomp 14y ago
I discuss the court's ridiculous disclaimer here: http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=85 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=85
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Oh, I agree that it is ridiculous, almost Monty Python ridiculous. I hope that you are successful, I will probably participate, and thank you for doing something. I think it is ridiculous for there to be any paywall for court information to start with. I hope that something like Veeck v SBCC will someday be applied. http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/293_F3d_791.htm
esurc 14y ago