Skip

Judiciary Seeks Public Comment on Internet Access to Court Documents
November 15, 2000 3:25 PM   Subscribe

Judiciary Seeks Public Comment on Internet Access to Court Documents "As federal courts make the transition from paper to electronic case files, the Judicial Conference of the United States is studying the privacy and security implications of vastly wider public access to court documents via the Internet. Public comment is sought."

Further down they tell you that it'll cost 7 cents a page, even online. From the same folks who waited years to put up Supreme Court dockets and opinions on the official site.
posted by thescoop (6 comments total)


 
Courts have always used fees for copying and shipping court papers to those who request them to defray significant portions of the cost of maintaining their dockets and filing areas.

Although, eventually, electronic filing of documents may lower these costs, for at least a few years, total headcounts and expenses related to document storage and retrieval won't decline.

Who better to pay: the person requesting the documents, or the taxpayers at large? I suggest the former.
posted by MattD at 4:25 PM on November 15, 2000


One word: Docster
posted by dhartung at 4:50 PM on November 15, 2000


No, let's call it Wapner.
posted by BozLee at 5:06 PM on November 15, 2000


Seven cents a page, though? That's just a made-up number. And what about re-post rights?
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:31 AM on November 16, 2000


Government documents are not copyrightable. Anyone can repost them.
posted by dhartung at 7:58 AM on November 16, 2000


If you were to make and maintain a searchable archive of court filings, it would probably cost you more than 7 cents per page per retrieval to operate, assuming that the you value the time and effort you would put to the project.

It's not about ownership, it's about costs of custodianship and operations...


posted by MattD at 8:04 AM on November 16, 2000


« Older Common Cause summarizes lessons learned thus far...   |   Why Digital Signatures Are Not Signatures Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post