4 ms·

Think Computer Foundation Sues U.S. Courts over PACER Fees

24 points by thinkcomp 12y ago

rahimnathwani 12y ago
The complaint covers at least two (areas): 1. PACER end-user pricing is above the cost of providing the service. 2. There are regulations in place which prevent or impede companies from being represented by themselves (or, I guess, their officers/employees?) in court, thus giving lawyers a monopoly. The American Bar Association is listed as a defendant in the suit. @thinkcomp I'm curious what outcome you are hoping for, and how high the chance you think achieving that is?
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  I'm hoping for a few things. 1. Public discussion. People talk about income equality a lot. This is in large part where it comes from: the way the cases arrive at the court's doorstep is incredibly skewed to start with. And once you're in court, the bias continues. 2. An injunction changing the rules. As much as I'd like it to be, I don't expect that PACER will be free, but it shouldn't be this expensive. And I shouldn't be forced to hire a lawyer if I don't want to. 3. Modernization of the courts. The courts are able to lag the rest of the economy in technology because no one ever pops their bubble; the judges think everything is fine. Everything is not fine--but it requires a precise articulation of why it's not fine to get their attention. I'm not sure I've achieved that, but I've at least tried.
  - ensignavenger 12y ago
    I just want to say thank you for fighting this fight. These are issues I have wanted to take up, but unfortunately have not had the resources to do so. Again, thank you.
DanBC 12y ago
The tag [Aaron Swartz], and Exhibit B, feel incompatible with the footer: "Please do not bulk download information from this web site without prior permission."
- thinkcomp 12y ago
  There's a difference between government and private entities. The Foundation literally can't afford to allow the entire world to download 100GB of legal data each; we're already over our data center quota many months. The United States government has a bit more to work with in the way of resources. The case is tagged Aaron Swartz because Aaron Swartz is mentioned in the complaint.
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    > The Foundation literally can't afford to allow the entire world to download 100GB of legal data each; we're already over our data center quota many months. I would gladly set aside some space and bandwidth for a torrent, if this can help you. My mail is in my profile.
  - dfc 12y ago
    Aaron is mentioned in passing and is not related to any cause of action (if for no other reason than you lack standing to bring a case related to his death) that I could find in the claim. I must say that attaching his name to the case fails my personal "ickyness test." Have you reached out to Carl Malamud[^1] and/or the folks at archive.org? I have a feeling they might be willing/able to help defray some of the bandwidth costs. [^1]: One of the few people I consider personal heroes.
    - thinkcomp 12y ago
      Sorry you feel that way. As the Defendants in the case attempt to think of ways to get it dismissed, one strategy that will almost certainly cross their mind is the "it doesn't matter" argument. Of course, it does matter. Aaron Swartz is proof. What the AO, FBI, Secret Service and DOJ did to him is the icky part, not this lawsuit. PlainSite makes use of RECAP and archive.org's infrastructure, and I'm working with them on a new project as well. I think Carl has his hands full with the IRS. The point of the disclaimer is not to prevent access--it's to provide a warning to the Russian and Chinese scrapers running up the bill (and I'm not even sure why they care about U.S. court data in bulk).
dfc 12y ago
Fighting PACER is god's work; requiring flash in order to display logos for the instant parties is the devil's.
pbreit 12y ago
I give Aaron a hard time (on the payments stuff) but I do appreciate that he generally has positive intent and deploys his cash and know-how in attempts to improve things.
tzs 12y ago
PACER pricing is ridiculous. From their FAQ: ------- begin quote ------- PACER charges $0.10 per page retrieved. This applies to both the pages of search results and the pages of documents you retrieve. The charge for any single document is capped at $3.00, the equivalent of 30 pages. The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific, and transcripts of federal court proceedings. If you accrue a total of less than $15.00 worth of charges in any given quarter, fees are waived for that quarter. ------- end quote ------- I can understand charging for document pages, but for search results pages?

24 points by thinkcomp 12y ago

The complaint covers at least two (areas): 1. PACER end-user pricing is above the cost of providing the service. 2. There are regulations in place which prevent or impede companies from being represented by themselves (or, I guess, their officers/employees?) in court, thus giving lawyers a monopoly. The American Bar Association is listed as a defendant in the suit. @thinkcomp I'm curious what outcome you are hoping for, and how high the chance you think achieving that is?

thinkcomp 12y ago
I'm hoping for a few things. 1. Public discussion. People talk about income equality a lot. This is in large part where it comes from: the way the cases arrive at the court's doorstep is incredibly skewed to start with. And once you're in court, the bias continues. 2. An injunction changing the rules. As much as I'd like it to be, I don't expect that PACER will be free, but it shouldn't be this expensive. And I shouldn't be forced to hire a lawyer if I don't want to. 3. Modernization of the courts. The courts are able to lag the rest of the economy in technology because no one ever pops their bubble; the judges think everything is fine. Everything is not fine--but it requires a precise articulation of why it's not fine to get their attention. I'm not sure I've achieved that, but I've at least tried.
- ensignavenger 12y ago
  I just want to say thank you for fighting this fight. These are issues I have wanted to take up, but unfortunately have not had the resources to do so. Again, thank you.

DanBC 12y ago

The tag [Aaron Swartz], and Exhibit B, feel incompatible with the footer: "Please do not bulk download information from this web site without prior permission."

thinkcomp 12y ago
There's a difference between government and private entities. The Foundation literally can't afford to allow the entire world to download 100GB of legal data each; we're already over our data center quota many months. The United States government has a bit more to work with in the way of resources. The case is tagged Aaron Swartz because Aaron Swartz is mentioned in the complaint.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > The Foundation literally can't afford to allow the entire world to download 100GB of legal data each; we're already over our data center quota many months. I would gladly set aside some space and bandwidth for a torrent, if this can help you. My mail is in my profile.
- dfc 12y ago
  Aaron is mentioned in passing and is not related to any cause of action (if for no other reason than you lack standing to bring a case related to his death) that I could find in the claim. I must say that attaching his name to the case fails my personal "ickyness test." Have you reached out to Carl Malamud[^1] and/or the folks at archive.org? I have a feeling they might be willing/able to help defray some of the bandwidth costs. [^1]: One of the few people I consider personal heroes.
  - thinkcomp 12y ago
    Sorry you feel that way. As the Defendants in the case attempt to think of ways to get it dismissed, one strategy that will almost certainly cross their mind is the "it doesn't matter" argument. Of course, it does matter. Aaron Swartz is proof. What the AO, FBI, Secret Service and DOJ did to him is the icky part, not this lawsuit. PlainSite makes use of RECAP and archive.org's infrastructure, and I'm working with them on a new project as well. I think Carl has his hands full with the IRS. The point of the disclaimer is not to prevent access--it's to provide a warning to the Russian and Chinese scrapers running up the bill (and I'm not even sure why they care about U.S. court data in bulk).

dfc 12y ago

Fighting PACER is god's work; requiring flash in order to display logos for the instant parties is the devil's.

pbreit 12y ago

I give Aaron a hard time (on the payments stuff) but I do appreciate that he generally has positive intent and deploys his cash and know-how in attempts to improve things.

tzs 12y ago

PACER pricing is ridiculous. From their FAQ: ------- begin quote ------- PACER charges $0.10 per page retrieved. This applies to both the pages of search results and the pages of documents you retrieve. The charge for any single document is capped at $3.00, the equivalent of 30 pages. The cap does not apply to name searches, reports that are not case-specific, and transcripts of federal court proceedings. If you accrue a total of less than $15.00 worth of charges in any given quarter, fees are waived for that quarter. ------- end quote ------- I can understand charging for document pages, but for search results pages?