Piker, can you say more about how "the change" make the documents "accessible" (or more accessible)? They were already at Internet Archive just fine. Several sites already copied the documents from IA and added their own presentation, cross-linking, notifications, and other services on top. I don't see the proposed changes as helping with this. Indeed, by sending the latest data only to CourtListener but not to IA, the proposed changes stand in the way of the other sites and services you envision -- as it seems they'll now have to license the data from FLP/CL (on a paid basis), rather than get it free directly from IA. These are the general concerns I was trying to present in my article.
Perhaps the "only" is telling here. Were they previously also uploading the tarballs? No wholesale user would want to scrape the thousands of extra pages of HTML to download the content. So if they weren't already uploading the tarballs, this is actually a beneficial change.
If FLP begins uploading only huge tarballs, and not the individual constituent files, I won't be able to do any of that.
Will they compete with the Internet Archive, which does not need to serve ads or charge fees?
The authors question remains unanswered. Is there any reason for the data to now be withheld from the Internet Archive?
This comment appears to be an appeal for "competition" that involves eliminating a competitor: the Internet Archive.
But consider that there are some users who prefer the Internet Archive for usability. Perhaps this is why the author writes about this on his blog. Anyone wishing to compete on usability can copy the data from Internet Archive and reformat it as they wish.
In the same way, there are some users who prefer EDGAR for SEC filings versus alternatives in terms of usability. Anyone can copy the data from EDGAR, repackage it and then compete on usability.
The existing source of the public data may present the data in a format free from Javascript tracking, third party advertising, paywalls and "free apis" that would allow access to be limited and optionally denied (contradicts stated objective of "making these documents accessible"; instead seeks to limit access). For some users, being free from these impediments makes the data highly accessible.
With respect to those users, any new proposed source must compete with the existing source. Not to mention the potential it allows for any others who may wish to reformat/repackage the data.
When the people behind the new proposed source call for the discontinuation of the original source, this raises a red flag.
Eliminating a competitor is not a prerequisite for "competition".
Finally, the suggestion of "non-profit status" is interesting.
Lets say someone who enjoys programming wants to start a project/company that repackages donated public information in a way that she believes is more usable than the alternatives.
Lets assume the costs of doing this are not that much, mainly just her time.
If she charges fees to users or advertisers for access, her income from this effort might exceed her costs.
She might reinvest the surplus into the project. She might pay herself a salary.
Is there a limit on how much she can pay herself while the business still remains tax-exempt?
Some details: http://blueavocado.org/content/how-much-pay-executive-direct...
To some users, it is actually preferable to have bulk access to raw data than thousands of individual html pages on a www server. Because for some it may be less work to transform the raw data into some other format, e.g., 1000s of pages of html, than it is to scrape all those html pages from a www server, process and store them in a searchable format.
Consider raw text versus PDF. PDF may look great but text is more flexible and more easily searchable. While its easy to convert text to PDF for reading, converting from PDF to text for searching is fraught with difficulty and a high margin for error.
If one accepts
more difficult: PDF -> text
less difficult: text -> PDF