[11132] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Email Comments on Public Domain Citations to Judicial Conference (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Love)
Tue Mar 11 01:45:36 1997
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:37:44 -0600 (CST)
From: James Love <love@tap.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from listproc@tap.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES
March 7, 1997
Public Domain Legal Citations
- United States Judicial Conference to accept email
comments on Public Domain Legal Citations.
- Comments to citation@ao.uscourts.gov due by
March 14, 1997.
James Love (love@tap.org, 202.387.3030)
Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.essential.org/cpt
The United States Judicial Conference has recently asked for
public comments on the desirability of adopting a citation
system for court opinions that is in the public domain.
These comments can be filed with the Judicial Conference by
electronic mail, by sending a note to:
citation@ao.uscourts.gov, and also by fax, at 202/273-1555.
Comments should be addressed to ABA Citation Resolution,
Suite 4-512, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
Washington, DC 20544. This is an extremely important
opportunity, and we strongly urge people to send in comments
by March 14, 1997.
Background
At present, most federal court opinions are referred to by
researchers, scholars, and practicing lawyers by the volume
number and page numbers of paper bound court reporters sold
by West Publishing. West Publishing claims that it "owns"
the citations to the past 75 years of federal court
opinions. West is pursuing these claims in two current
copyright suits, and West is trying to get the United States
government and the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) to approve special sui generis intellectual property
laws which would strengthen its monopoly on legal citations.
When West Publishing was bought by Thomson, a foreign owned
publishing giant, Thomson agreed to license the citations to
its competitors for fees which scale up to 9 cents per 1,000
characters per opinion, per year. (We do not believe these
licenses are available to persons who make court opinions
freely available on the Internet, in part because end users
must sign licenses whose format is approved by
Thomson/West.)
Many experts want the courts to adopt a public domain system
for citation to court opinions. Experts believe this is
needed both to end the West monopoly on court citations, and
also to provide a more modern form of citation that would
work better with the Internet and other forms of electronic
publishing. In July 1996, The American Bar Association
(ABA) made its recommendation for a public citation system.
(http://www.ABANET.ORG/citation/home.html) The ABA system
was essentially the same as systems recommended earlier by
several state bar associations, as well as the American
Association of Law Libraries (AALL), the Department of
Justice (DoJ), the American Association of Legal Publishers
(made up of small high technology American legal
publishers), and many citizen groups, including the Consumer
Project on Technology.
The ABA asked courts to adopt a standard form of citation
that would use the name of the case, the year, the court of
jurisdiction, a sequential number for the opinion, and a
paragraph number for the text. The main difference between
this and the West Publishing citation would simply be that
the court would number its opinions and the paragraphs
within the opinion, so it would not have to rely upon the
West volume and page numbers. This would permit the
citation to be available the instant the opinion was
released from the court, and to be used by any publisher,
and in any format. For example, a 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals case called Smith v. Jones, which was the 15th
opinion issued by the court in 1996, might be cited as:
Smith v. Jones, 1996 5Cir 15, P. 18
Where P. 18 would indicate the citation referred to text
from the 18th numbered paragraph.
The advantage of paragraph numbering is that it permits
precise references to text, regardless of the publisher, the
fonts used, or the format in which the information is
displayed. This system is as old as the Bible, which itself
uses a system of paragraph numbers. Paragraph numbering is
also used by lawyers to identify the text in court
pleadings. (The ABA committee was told that appeals court
judges often number the paragraphs of draft opinions, which
go through several versions.)
Members of the Federal Judiciary have asked the United
States Judicial Conference to determine if they should
implement the ABA recommendation. There is considerable
resistance by some federal judges. As you may know, federal
judges and their law clerks get unlimited access to Westlaw
and Lexis at taxpayer expense, so the problems caused by the
West monopoly on citations isn't always a pressing concern.
Some judges think there is no need for change from the
status quo, and that it would be a costly burden to number
opinions and paragraphs. (I'm not making this up). Many
judges also do not believe that anyone but lawyers are
interested in reading court opinions.
The Judicial Conference has assigned this matter to a
subcommittee of its Committee on Automation and Technology.
The full committee is chaired by District Court Judge J.
Owen Forrester, from Atlanta, GA. The subcommittee
considering the issue of the ABA recommendation on public
domain citations has seven members. They are:
Chair, Judge Edward Nottingham, District Court, CO
Judge Richard Nygaard 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Erie, PA
Judge Paul Barbadaro, District Court, NH
Judge James Robertson, District Court for DC
Judge Roger Strand, District Court, Phoenix, AZ
Judge Franklin Waters, District Court, Fayetteville, AR
Magistrate Judge David Baker, Orlando, FL
The public is asked to comment on two questions:
(1) Whether the federal courts should adopt the form of
official citation for court decisions recommended by the ABA
resolution; and,
(2) The costs and benefits such a decision would have on the
courts, the bar, and the public.
There will also be a public hearing on Thursday, April 3,
1997, in Washington, DC. As indicated above, send the
comments by electronic mail to: citation@ao.uscourts.gov, or
by fax, at 202/273-1555, addressed to ABA Citation
Resolution, Suite 4-512, Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, Washington, DC 20544.
Talking points:
1. Explain why it is inappropriate for a private entity
(West Publishing) to "own" citations to government
documents.
2. Explain why ordinary citizens care about access to
court opinions. What are the benefits to the public of
having better access to legal information.
3. Explain why a less monopolistic system for legal
citations is likely to increase competition among legal
publishers, and lower prices for consumers.
4. Tell the subcommittee that the courts should do a
better job making court information available to taxpayers,
who are expected to obey the law.
5. Tell the subcommittee that the courts should make all
federal court opinions available on the Internet, with
citations that will permit the public to uniquely identify
and cite an opinion.
6. Point out that federal, state, and local governments
are huge consumers of high priced legal information, and
that taxpayers will benefit from more competition for legal
information.
7. Explain why we benefit from better access to the text
of court opinions: as citizens, students, researchers,
business persons, etc.
Jamie Love(love@tap.org, 202.387.8030)
Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.essential.org/cpt
The Federal Register Notice Follows:
______________________________________
[Federal Register: February 21, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 8037-8038]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
Committee on Automation and Technology; Notice of
Opportunity To Comment and of Public Hearing on the ABA
Citation Resolution
AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee
on Automation and Technology.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity to comment and of public
hearing on the ABA Citation Resolution.
In August 1996, the American Bar Association (ABA) approved
a resolution made by its Special Committee on Citation
Issues calling for state and federal courts to develop a
standard citation system and recommending a format that
could be used by state and federal courts. That resolution
calls for courts to identify the citation on each decision
at the time it is made available to the public. The ABA
resolution is available through the Internet
(http://www.ABANET.ORG/citation/home.html).
The federal judiciary seeks written public comments from
judges, court personnel, the bar, and the public as to:
(1) Whether the federal courts should adopt the form of
official citation for court decisions recommended by the ABA
resolution; and,
(2) The costs and benefits such a decision would have on the
courts, the bar, and the public.
In addition, a public hearing will be held on Thursday,
April 3, beginning at 9 a.m. in the ceremonial courtroom of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 3rd
and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. to address
issues (1) and (2) stated above. Persons and organizations
wishing to submit written comments should do so by sending
them to: Appellate Court and Circuit Administration
Division, ATTN: ABA Citation Resolution, Suite 4-512,
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Washington, D.C.
20544, Fax (202) 273-1555. Internet address:
citation@ao.uscourts.gov.
Submission of written comments is preferred in electronic
form and should be sent to citation@ao.uscourts.gov in ASCII
or WordPerfect 6.1or earlier versions. Alternatively,
comments may be submitted in printed form through mail or
facsimile. Persons without access to Internet may send a
diskette. If printed comments are submitted, ten copies
should be provided. Written comments are due no later than
Friday, March 14, 1997. All comments received will be
considered public information. Anyone submitting written
comments who also is interested in testifying at the public
hearing should submit a written request to the above address
no later than Friday, march 14, 1997. Since it is expected
that only a limited number of requests can be granted, the
request should set forth reasons why an oral presentation in
addition to written comments would be helpful to
consideration of these issues. The request should identify
the persons who wish to testify, the subjects to be
addressed, the estimated amount of time desired (the maximum
is 15 minutes), and the organization represented, phone
number, and fax number. If possible, advance copies of
testimony should be submitted.
Any questions about this notice may be directed to Joan
Countryman at (202) 273-1543.
Dated: February 12, 1997.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
[FR Doc. 97-4230 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
------------------------------------------
You can get additional information about this issue from
Eleanor Lewis of the American Association of Legal
Publishers (vocice: 301/652-3453; fax 301/652-2970, email
elewis@tax.org). AALP is a trade association of small
legal publishers who compete against foreign owned legal
publishing giants like Thomson and Reed-Elsevier (owner of
Lexis).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a newsletter sponsored by the Consumer Project
on Technology (CPT), a project of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of
Responsive Law. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential
Information. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from
http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/
CPT's Web page is http://www.essential.org/cpt
Send subscription requests to listproc@tap.org with the message:
subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe
CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC
20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
