DOCSLIB.ORG

Can RECAP Turn PACER Around? by Blackwell N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can RECAP Turn PACER Around? by Blackwell N Consultus Electronica Can RECAP Turn PACER Around? by Blackwell N. Shelley Jr. PACER is the acronym for Public Access PACER’s user fees are a significant source grammer Aaron Swartz seized the to Court Electronic Records, a Web- of revenue for the third branch, but do opportunity to make a contribution to based service run by the Administrative PACER’s users get what they pay for? Public.Resource.Org. On one of the Office of the United States Courts (AO). Law librarians have criticized PACER, computers at the Seventh Circuit U.S. PACER began in 1989 as a pilot program saying that documents downloaded Court of Appeals library, Swartz serving a few U.S. district and bankruptcy from PACER cannot be authenticated. installed a small Perl (dynamic pro- courts. Beginning in 1990, the federal They have been circulating a petition gramming language) script that, every Judicial Conference, under the direction asking the AO to digitally sign each doc- three seconds, downloaded a new of Congress, prescribed fees for the use ument filed on the system using readily PACER document. Over the course of of PACER. In those dark days before the available technology. And law librarians several weeks, Swartz moved 780 giga- Internet, PACER was a bulletin board have criticized the cost and poor design bytes of data — 19,856,160 pages of text service with dial-up access and it cost a of PACER and have requested that — from PACER to an Amazon cloud dollar a minute to use. The per minute depository libraries get free access.4 server. Swartz then donated the docu- fee decreased during the 1990s, until Librarians are not alone in criticiz- ments to Public.Resource.Org. 1998, when the federal judiciary imple- ing PACER. The GPO and the AO were not mented the new Case Management/ Enter Carl Malamud. Malamud, pleased. The free access experiment was Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. depending on your perspective, is either abruptly discontinued. Amazon identi- CM/ECF, which was Web-based, a hero or villain of the Internet. He is fied Swartz to the FBI. According to a dropped the per minute charge entirely partially responsible for creating the Freedom of Information Act request and substituted a seven cents per page first Internet radio station, for putting made by Swartz, the FBI checked user fee to download or view documents the U.S. Securities and Exchange Swartz’s Facebook page, his work history in case files. Currently, the fee is eight Commission’s EDGAR database online with the U.S. Department of Labor, any cents per page, with some exceptions. and, recently, for persuading the outstanding warrants and prior convic- The PACER fees trace their origin to Government Printing Office (GPO) to tions, and his mobile phone number 1988, when the judiciary sought con- create a standard for publishing the against its federal wiretap or pen register gressional funding to establish electronic Federal Register online, for free, in XML records. They checked him against the public access services. Rather than format. Malamud operates the nonprofit records in a private data broker’s data- appropriating funds for this purpose, Public.Resource.Org, which, among other base and considered a stakeout of his Congress directed the judiciary to fund things, advocates that public records house. On the advice of his counsel, that initiative through the collection of should be freely available on the Web. Swartz declined invitations to discuss his user fees. (See 28 U.S.C. § 612.) As a Not surprisingly, PACER’s per page exploit and, ultimately, the FBI dropped result, PACER has always relied on fee charge irks Malamud, who believes that the investigation.6 revenue. These revenues, however, have public access to court records should be Swartz’s Perl script, referenced far outstripped expectations. According open and free. (Malamud has also com- above, originated with Stephen Schultze, to the 2006 annual report of the Judicial plained publicly about PACER’s hit-or- a fellow at the Berkman Center for Information Technology Fund, the fed- miss record related to the publication of Internet and Society at Harvard eral judiciary collected $62.3 million in personal identifying information, such University. Schultze has also been a critic electronic public access fees in 2006, as addresses and Social Security num- of PACER’s user fees, and suggests that resulting in a budget surplus (for PACER bers.) Malamud’s organization has been they violate Section 205 (e) of the E- alone) of $32.2 million.1 By 2008, the amassing case law, codes, and treatises Government Act of 2002, which director of the Administrative Office of from public domain sources and, in amended then-existing law to state that the U.S. Courts reported that revenues some instances, by purchasing the “the Judicial Conference may, only to the from the PACER user fees would be rights and making the collection avail- extent necessary, prescribe reasonable fees “used to finance other expenses related able online for free in the Internet [for PACER].” In August 2009, Schultze to electronic public access to the courts Archive.5 Malamud’s efforts have been became the associate director of in areas such as courtroom technology controversial. Princeton University’s Center for and the Bankruptcy Noticing Center.”2 In the fall of 2008, the GPO experi- Information Technology Policy (CITP). According to the New Jersey Law Journal, mented with giving PACER away for PACER’s unspent revenues were $76.8 free at seventeen select libraries around 3 million for the 2008 fiscal year. Clearly, the country. Twenty-two year old pro- RECAP continued on page 58 www.vsb.org Vol. 58 | December 2009 | VIRGINIA LAWYER 57 RECAP continued from page 57 the RECAP database not be indexed by Worries_Some_Courts, last visited search engines, in order to keep the November 12, 2009. Also in August, the CITP started information relatively unknowable.) 4 The petition is available at the RECAP project.7 RECAP (motto: Finally, while documents created by a http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ improve-PACER, last visited “Turning PACER around”) is a free court are not subject to copyright pro- November 12, 2009. tection, there is no clear answer to the plug-in for the Firefox Web browser. 5 The current collection is at: RECAP works like this: If you run a question of whether copyright protec- http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/, PACER search, RECAP checks your tion can be extended to pleadings last visited November 12, 2009. query against the free database at drafted by counsel or pro se parties. 6 See “FBI Investigated Coder for Internet Archive (www.archive.org). If Although there is no apparent Liberating Paywalled Court Records,” the document is already there, RECAP connection to RECAP, the federal available at http://www.wired.com/ will show an on-screen icon, you can judiciary’s Electronic Public Access threatlevel/tag/aaron-swartz/, last vis- get the document from the public Program is conducting a self-assess- ited November 12, 2009. See, The New source, and you can skip the user fee. If ment of PACER to end in 2010.9 The York Times News Blog, “The Lede: the document is not in the public data- survey asks interested PACER users the Steal These Federal Records — Okay, participant to rate his or her satisfac- Not Literally,” Schwartz, J. and base and you choose to download it, Mackey, R., available at http://thelede RECAP automatically posts the new tion, explain the rating, and pick one .blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/steal- document to the free database. thing to change about the system. these-federal-records-okay-not- The AO’s response to RECAP was According to the AO, the survey literally/?ref=us, last visited November terse, but the office did not summon results will help define the next gener- 12, 2009. See New York Times, “An the FBI.8 The position of the U.S. ation of PACER. Meanwhile, PACER Effort to Upgrade a Court Archive Courts is that if a PACER user is will cost eight cents per page for the System to Free and Easy,” Schwartz, J., exempt from the user fees, then the foreseeable future. at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/ user may not redistribute a down- 02/13/us/13records.html?_r=1, last loaded document; otherwise, any Endnotes: visited November 12, 2009. 7 See https://www.recapthelaw.org/, last PACER user who pays the user fee may 1 See Judiciary Information Technology Fund Annual Report for Fiscal Year visited November 12, 2009. save a copy of the document on the 8 See http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ public database. So, officially, RECAP is 2006, at http://www.scribd.com/ doc/2436289/, last visited November announcements/general/ legitimate and legal. 12, 2009. exemptnotice.html, last visited The documents in the RECAP 2 See Annual Report of the Director, November 12, 2009. database at Internet Archive are, how- Activities of the Administrative Office 9 Electronic Public Access Program/ ever, heirs to the flaws of the docu- of the U.S. Courts, James C. Duff, PACER Assessment Begun, The ments in the PACER database. There is Director, at http://www.uscourts.gov/ Third Branch, available at http:// no way to know whether documents in library/annualreports/2008/index.cfm, www.uscourts.gov/ttb/2009-09/ the RECAP database are genuine last visited November 12, 2009. article05.cfm?WT.cg_n=TTB&WT.cg_ copies of the documents in the PACER 3 See New Jersey Law Journal, September s=Sep09_article05_tableOfContents, last visited November 12, 2009. system. Likewise, if a document in the 2, 2009, “Free Web Access to Judicial PACER system contains unredacted Records Gladdens Public but Worries Some Courts,” available at personal identifying information, then http://www.law.com/jsp/law/sfb/ the RECAP document will also contain lawArticleSFB.jsp?id=1202433517232 unredacted information.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6w76f8x7 Author Swift, Kathy Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Education by Kathleen Anne Swift Committee in charge: Professor Richard Duran, Chair Professor Diana Arya Professor William Robinson September 2017 The dissertation of Kathleen Anne Swift is approved. ................................................................................................................................ Diana Arya ................................................................................................................................ William Robinson ................................................................................................................................ Richard Duran, Committee Chair June 2017 A Web of Extended Metaphors in the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto of Aaron Swartz Copyright © 2017 by Kathleen Anne Swift iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee for their advice and patience as I worked on gathering and analyzing the copious amounts of research necessary to
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz
    Report to the President MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz Review Panel Harold Abelson Peter A. Diamond Andrew Grosso Douglas W. Pfeiffer (support) July 26, 2013 © Copyright 2013, Massachusetts Institute of Technology This worK is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. PRESIDENT REIF’S CHARGE TO HAL ABELSON | iii L. Rafael Reif, President 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Building 3-208 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 U.S.A. Phone 1-617-253-0148 !"#$"%&'(()'(*+,' ' -."%'/%01.220%'34.520#6' ' 78#9.'1"55'(*+*)':;<'="2'4..#'8#>05>.?'8#'.>.#@2'"%828#A'1%0B'"9@80#2'@"C.#'4&'3"%0#'7D"%@E'@0' "99.22'!7<FG'@=%0$A='@=.':;<'90BH$@.%'#.@D0%CI';'=">.'"2C.?'&0$)'"#?'&0$'=">.'A%"980$25&' "A%..?)'@0'%.>8.D':;<J2'8#>05>.B.#@I' ' <=.'H$%H02.'01'@=82'%.>8.D'82'@0'?.29%84.':;<J2'"9@80#2'"#?'@0'5."%#'1%0B'@=.BI'K0$%'%.>8.D' 2=0$5?'L+M'?.29%84.':;<J2'"9@80#2'"#?'?.98280#2'?$%8#A'@=.'H.%80?'4.A8##8#A'D=.#':;<'18%2@' 4.9"B.'"D"%.'01'$#$2$"5'!7<FGN%.5"@.?'"9@8>8@&'0#'8@2'#.@D0%C'4&'"'@=.#N$#8?.#@818.?'H.%20#)' $#@85'@=.'?."@='01'3"%0#'7D"%@E'0#'!"#$"%&'++)'(*+,)'L(M'%.>8.D'@=.'90#@.O@'01'@=.2.'?.98280#2'"#?' @=.'0H@80#2'@="@':;<'90#28?.%.?)'"#?'L,M'8?.#@81&'@=.'822$.2'@="@'D"%%"#@'1$%@=.%'"#"5&282'8#'0%?.%' @0'5."%#'1%0B'@=.2.'.>.#@2I' ' ;'@%$2@'@="@'@=.':;<'90BB$#8@&)'8#95$?8#A'@=02.'8#>05>.?'8#'@=.2.'.>.#@2)'"5D"&2'"9@2'D8@='=8A=' H%01.2280#"5'8#@.A%8@&'"#?'"'2@%0#A'2.#2.'01'%.2H0#284858@&'@0':;<I'P0D.>.%)':;<'@%8.2'90#@8#$0$25&' @0'8BH%0>.'"#?'@0'B..@'8@2'=8A=.2@'"2H8%"@80#2I';@'82'8#'@="@'2H8%8@'@="@';'"2C'&0$'@0'=.5H':;<'5."%#' 1%0B'@=.2.'.>.#@2I'
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES Salt Lake City, UT October 18, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENDA ...................................................................................................................................... 5 TAB 1 OPENING BUSINESS A. Draft Minutes of April 2013 Criminal Rules Meeting ....................... 19 B. Draft Minutes of June 2013 Standing Committee Meeting............... 37 TAB 2 AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL RULES UNDER CONSIDERATION A. Proposed Amendments Approved by the Supreme Court & Submitted to Congress Rule 11. Pleas........................................................................................ 81 B. Proposed Amendments Approved by the Judicial Conference & Transmitted to the Supreme Court Rule 5. Initial Appearance .................................................................. 87 Rule 6. The Grand Jury ...................................................................... 91 Rule 12. Pleadings & Pretrial Motions .............................................. 95 Rule 34. Arresting Judgment ............................................................ 107 Rule 58. Petty Offenses & Other Misdemeanors ............................ 109 TAB 3 PROPOSAL TO AMEND RULE 4 A. Reporters’ Memorandum Regarding Rule 4 (September 24, 2013) .......................................................................... 117 B. Proposed Amended Rule 4 (with style changes) ............................... 129 C. Proposed Amended Rule 4 (without style changes) ......................... 135 D. Letter to Judge
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Declaration 20160514.Pages
    Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 21 EXHIBIT A Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) CODE REVISION COMMISSION ) on Behalf of and For the Benefit of the ) CIVIL ACTION GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA, ) NO. 1:15-cv-2594-MHC and the STATE OF GEORGIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) DECLARATION OF CARL MALAMUD IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I, Carl Malamud, declare as follows: 1. I am the founder of Public.Resource.Org ("Public Resource”). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and know them to be true and correct. I could competently testify to them if called as a witness. Case 1:15-cv-02594-MHC Document 29-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 21 2. I wish to explain why I purchased, scanned, and posted on the Internet the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. 3. As plaintiffs have mentioned that my name was considered for appointment as Public Printer of the United States and that President Obama did not appoint me to that position, I will explain the circumstances. 4. From 2005-2006, I served as Chief Technology Officer to John D. Podesta, the President and CEO of the non-profit research organization, the Center for American Progress (“CAP”). Although my main job was to help the institution and its people use technology effectively, John encouraged me to undertake initiatives around national technology policy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government
    PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ~ A Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government March 30, 2015 HONORABLE LEE H. ROSENTHAL United States Courthouse 515 Rusk Street, Room 11535 Houston, Texas 77002 RE: Ongoing Privacy Breaches by the United States Courts Dear Judge Rosenthal: In 2008, I sent to your attention 3 audits of privacy violations in the proceedings of United States Courts: • On May 3, 2008, I notified you of a large number of Social Security Numbers in the opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals. A redacted copy of that audit is viewable at this URL: https://public.resource.org/scribd/7512579.pdf • On October 3, 2008, I notified you of a preliminary audit of privacy violations in 12 U.S. District Courts. A redacted copy of that audit is viewable at this URL: https:// public.resource.org/scribd/7512580.pdf • On October 24, 2008, I notified you of the completed audit of privacy violations in 32 U.S. District Courts. A redacted copy of that audit is viewable at this URL: https://public.resource.org/scribd/7512583.pdf In addition to my communications directly with you, I sent the audit results 3 times to the Chief Judges of selected U.S. District Courts. Some of those communications can be found at the following URL: https://public.resource.org/uscourts.gov/ You took a number of actions in response to these audits: • On July 16, 2008, you acknowledged the audit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. A copy of that letter is viewable at this URL: https://public.resource.org/scribd/ 7512576.pdf • On March 31, 2009, you responded to a formal inquiry from the United States Senate in a joint letter with Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Keepgrabbing.Py : Additions, and Documents
    keepgrabbing.py : additions, and documents. Camille Akmut January 13, 2020 Abstract Important program continues to be reviewed from all perspectives. 1 Additions Python’s str() function takes an object and converts it to a string… >>> str(1) '1' In this example, the integer 1 becomes the string ‘1’ (or “1”). >>> type(1) <class 'int'> >>> type('1') <class 'str'> (Side note : In Python, the single quotes ‘ ‘ do not signify a character as opposed to a string; for which double quotes “ “ would be used - in Haskell. In that former language, they are the same (type of objects, they have the same type) : >>> '1' == "1" True >>> '10' # '10' is not a character (but '1' is for example) '10' >>> type('10') <class 'str'> >>> type("10") <class 'str'> ) Haskell’s version of Python’s split() is words (from the Data.List module) : Prelude Data.List> words "article1 article2" ["article1","article2"] Here I’ve re-written the proxy of the lambda function that I showed, in Haskell : Prelude> line = (\x -> x*2) Prelude> line 3 6 Prelude> blocks = [3,2,1] Prelude> map line blocks [6,4,2] (mapping is the functional programming equivalent of looping, as found in languages with imperative elements / Python) or, closer to Aaron’s application : Prelude> line = (\x -> ["curl"] ++ [x]) Prelude> line "--proxy" ["curl","--proxy"] Now you may be asking yourself : how do we go from this list of strings, to something that could be passed to Curl/Wget or the Shell? We do this : Prelude> unwords ["curl","--proxy"] "curl --proxy" (Haskell has a function just for this, unwords. If it did not we would have needed to write our own, most likely a fold.
    [Show full text]
  • PACER Fees To
    Case: 19-1081 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 08/06/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2019-1081, 2019-1083 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:16-cv-00745-ESH, Judge El- len S. Huvelle. ______________________ Decided: August 6, 2020 ______________________ DEEPAK GUPTA, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by JONATHAN TAYLOR; WILLIAM H. NARWOLD, Motley Rice LLC, Hartford, CT; MEGHAN OLIVER, Mt. Pleasant, SC. ALISA BETH KLEIN, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ar- gued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by MARK B. STERN, ETHAN P. DAVIS. Case: 19-1081 Document: 95 Page: 2 Filed: 08/06/2020 2 NVLSP v. UNITED STATES SEAN MAROTTA, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for amici curiae W. Royal Furgeson, Jr., Nancy Gertner, Brian L. Owsley, Viktor V. Pohorelsky, Shira Ann Scheindlin, Stephen W. Smith, Richard A. Posner. Also represented by STEPHEN SCHULTZE, CLAUDIA PARE. PHILLIP R. MALONE, Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for amici curiae Casetext, Docket Alarm, Fastcase, Free Law Project, Internet Archive, Judi- cata, Mark A. Lemley, Ravel, Syntexys, UniCourt.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ~ a Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government
    PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG ~ A Nonprofit Corporation Public Works for a Better Government November 20, 2015 Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: Thank you for your kind invitation of July 20, 2015 to provide an update on the issue of edicts of government that you invited me to discuss with you on January 14, 2014. In my testimony, I detailed some of the obstacles our nonprofit corporation was beginning to face for posting primary legal documents such as federal and state regulations and official state codes on the Internet. While there has been a huge amount of progress in making edicts of government more readily available and accessible on the Internet since that time, the obstacles that we face have also increased. I’m attaching for your review a summary of Public Resource’s activities in the area of edicts of government in 2015. As you can see, that list if rather extensive. Our work this year falls in three general categories: • In 2015, Public Resource responded to 10 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In each case an agency was proposing to incorporate by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations public safety standards. Our comments were submitted with co-signatories representing a broad segment of the public. On the diving safety NPRM submitted to the Coast Guard, for example, six certified divers joined us as cosignatories. For a comment on Federal Highway Administration road standards, we were joined by distinguished transportation experts and by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO).
    [Show full text]
  • Free PACER by Susan Lyons
    AALLSpectrum_July2009:1 6/18/09 3:18 PM Page 30 Balancing access and privacy Free PACER By Susan Lyons n 2001, the Judicial Conference of the United States gingerly entered the Internet age with the release of a Web-based version of the Public Access to Court Electronic Records I(PACER) database that allowed remote public access to most federal civil court documents over the Internet. It did so only after two years of studies, reports, and the solicitation of public comments. The 242 comments received by the conference reflected the tension between access and privacy. Journalists, private investigators, and data companies urged full and unfettered access, insisting that “public is public!” Other comments urged caution, citing privacy concerns and the potential for identity theft from the misuse of sensitive financial and personal information contained in many court filings. 30 AALL Spectrum July 2009 AALLSpectrum_July2009:1 6/18/09 3:29 PM Page 31 The courts balanced these concerns court, have long been open to the adjacent to our reference desk, was the by coming up with the system that public. Some authors argued that these main portal for PACER access. Only remains largely in place today. Obtaining paper records existed in a state of librarians and circulation staff had access documents through PACER requires a “practical obscurity” that served to to the password. password-protected account. Anyone can minimize privacy concerns. Court On the very day I received our apply for an account but must surrender records held in paper files are not easily password and while I was still working some personal information to do so: a browsed and potential identity thieves on a Web page that would promote physical address, an e-mail address, and might feel some discomfort in lingering the program and explain how to use credit card information.
    [Show full text]
  • Philanthropy and the Social Economy: Blueprint 2016 Is an Annual Industry Forecast About the Ways We Use Private Resources for Public Benefit
    6 6 Acknowledgments Online Components The digital version of this Blueprint has been This last year was unlike any other in that I spent one month of it on a writing optimized with links that enhance and deepen sabbatical courtesy of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Residency the conversation around topics raised. To explore program. The work I did and the people I met there will forever expand my anything that is printed in bold purple, please visit thinking about all things digital and civil. Colleagues from Stanford and all our grantcraft.org/blueprint16 to access your free workshop participants at the Digital Civil Society Lab helped me investigate digital copy and to be connected with related many new ideas. Special thanks to Anne Focke, editor, and Foundation Center blogs and discussions. staff Jen Bokoff, Amanda Dillon, Christine Innamorato, Cheryl Loe, Erin Nylen- Wysocki, Lisa Philp, and Noli Vega. Big thanks to this year’s intrepid external lucybernholz.com readers: Jara Dean Coffey, John E. Kobara, Katie Marcus Reker, Anisha Singh pacscenter.stanford.edu White, Gurpreet Singh, Gene Takagi, and Kate Wing. Their breadth of knowledge pacscenter.stanford.edu/digital-civil-society pushed my thinking, and their editorial guidance clarified some of my text. I am philanthropy2173.com responsible for all remaining mistakes. © 2015 Lucy Bernholz. This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License, creative commons.org/licenses/by0nc/4.0. ISBN 978-0-9847811-6-4 For more information, contact [email protected] and [email protected]. Copies available for free download at grantcraft.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Masaryk University Brno Faculty Of
    MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE Podcasts and their use in education Bachelor thesis Brno 2018 Supervisor: Author: Mgr. Pavla Buchtová Oliver Koštejn Prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem bakalářskou práci vypracoval samostatně, s využitím pouze citovaných literárních pramenů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Brno, 30. března 2018 ……………………….. Oliver Koštejn Aknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Pavla Buchtová, for her helpful advice and the right amount of scepticism and encouragement. Additionally, many thanks to my family and friends, for moral support, patience and love, especially during the trying times of my studies. Thank you, Oliver Annotation The focus of this thesis is on the medium of podcasting. The thesis analyses podcasts in terms of the evolution of the medium, describes the variations in form and content while providing examples, acknowledges its advantages and disadvantages and maps the current state of its popularity and general awareness. The last chapter aims to provide proof of the potential podcasts present as a supplementary teaching material and its value in use as input for language acquisition. Keywords: podcasting, podcast, media, audio drama, language acquisition, spoken word, audio Anotace Tato práce se zabývá médiem podcastingu. Práce analyzuje podcasty z hlediska evoluce media, popisuje rozdíly ve formě i v obsahu za pomoci příkladů, věnuje pozornost výhodám i nevýhodám média a vykresluje nynější stav jeho popularity a místa v obecném povědomí.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright-Law-Cannot-Copyright
    Mitchell Hamline Law Review Volume 47 Issue 3 Article 4 2021 Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., 140 S.CT. 1498 (2020) Andy Taylor Follow this and additional works at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Andy (2021) "Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., 140 S.CT. 1498 (2020)," Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 47 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol47/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mitchell Hamline Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Taylor: Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org COPYRIGHT LAW CANNOT COPYRIGHT LAWGEORGIA V. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., 140 S. CT. 1498 (2020) Andy Taylor ǂ I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 977 II. THE PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG DECISION ...................................... 978 A. Facts and Procedural History ................................................ 978 B. U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision ............................................ 982 C. Understanding the Stakeholders’ Interests ........................... 985 1. What is Public.Resource.Org? ............................................
    [Show full text]