Today, I received an email from the Western District of Washington’s e-filing folks. They wanted to give us a heads up on RECAP and where the district stood on the use of the software.

“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.

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.

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.”

Really?  Free access and file sharing of court records for which I typically pay .08 per page? I immediately went to the RECAP website and read what they had to say.

RECAP is a project of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. It is one of several projects that harness the power of the web to increase government transparency. Some of the driving principles behind the project can be found in the recent paper, Government Data and the Invisible Hand. RECAP was developed by Harlan Yu, Steve Schultze, and Timothy B. Lee. The project is led by Prof. Ed Felten.

Last week the Center did a round-up of leading technology-focused sites that have covered RECAP. Now, it seems that news of RECAP is spreading beyond the “tech blogosphere,” as more mainstream publications have begun writing about our software. Foreign Policy’s Evgeny Morozov covered RECAP, calling it “smart and subversive.” On Wednesday NextGov, a National Journal publication widely read within the government IT community, ran a thorough write-up of RECAP by Aliya Sternstein. It included some good background on how RECAP fits into the larger debate about judicial transparency.

Finally, Katherine Mangu-Ward has penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal about RECAP. Katherine calls RECAP “a sleek little add-on” with “a stylish and subversive touch.”

I downloaded it on the spot. After all, these are public records.  You aren’t paying $0.08 a page to license a copyrighted work (or $0.80 for a copyrighted mp3), the fee is to give you access to the pacer system.

Wait then, am I violating a license to use PACER?  A little research turned this up:

“What are the acceptable uses of the data obtained from the PACER system?

The PACER system provides electronic access to case information from federal courts across the United States. The information gathered from the PACER system is a matter of public record and may be reproduced without permission. However, the PACER customer assumes all responsibility for consequences that arise from use of the data.”

Unfortunately, I appear to be the only one using RECAP on cases I’m monitoring, but now others can access the information I’m collecting.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It

The Washington State Bar Association has gone creative in an attempt to engage Washington residents with the legal system, new media, and creating user-generated content for YouTube.

The Mission:  “Create a three-minute-or-less video that captures your vision of justice for all as citizens of Washington state, and win one of two $1,000 prizes!”

The Criteria:  Winners will be chosen in two categories: one winner as selected by a panel of judges, and one People’s Choice winner chosen from among all entries. Individuals, groups or classrooms may enter, and be eligible for either award. One entry may be awarded both awards. 

Contestants must post their video to www.youtube.com/group/WashingtonStateBar by 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 2009.

View complete details here.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It

ChinaDaily.com reports that prosecution for online copyright infringement reached record levels in China last year. However, Yan Xiaohong, vice-minister of the National Copyright Administration (NCA), at a press conference held by the State Council Information Office stated that “Internet copyright infringement is still very prevalent in the country.” Yan called for tougher legislation. “Fines and sentences meted out have not been enough,” he said. “We must make offenders realize the costs of violation are too high for them to continue.”

Meanwhile, P2Pnet.net is circulating Fair Copyright for Canada principles in an attempt to diffuse, moderate or influence new copyright laws severely limiting the use of digital media under consideration by Canadian Parliament. Unlike the Best Use Principles for User-Generated Content, this position moves upstream from practice to policy, by attempting to affect the outcome of the Canadian DMCA.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., that pug was definitely Truman.

Washington Post writer, Monica Hesse, notes that the incidence of large corporations infringing the copyrights of individuals is soaring. (Unlike Canada, in the U.S. one must register copyright in order to have any enforceable rights–seldom done by authors of user-generated content.) Ms. Hess goes on to comment that “in an increasingly user-generated world where the public is the artist, sometimes it’s the big boys who get grabby. And the questions that arise are about ownership, but they are also about fairness, and changing culture, and ultimately, the search for authenticity.”

As our norms are changing and user-generated content is rapidly overtaking studio content, does it still make sense that our governments are focusing on protecting large content owners? More importantly, is China, Canada, or the United States ready for a conversation about this.

Liked This Article? Bookmark It