Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can't View Its Website's HTML Source
from the that's-a-new-one dept
Greg Beck writes in to let us know that the law firm that was recently challenged for claiming that it was a copyright violation to post its cease-and-desist letter also has some other interesting ideas about copyright, including banning people from looking at the firm's source code. You can view the entire user agreement, but the amusing part is:
"We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so."As Beck says, "That's kind of like a puppet show invoking copyright to prohibit the audience from looking at the strings. The user agreements of the law firm and one of its clients also contain a bunch of terrible terms that have become all too common: a prohibition on linking to the site, copying anything from the site (even if its fair use), and even referring to the website owner by name. The law firm doesn't even allow its own clients to say they're represented by the firm without permission." He also notes that the law firm in question is demanding that another website remove criticism of one of their clients because it did not receive permission to use the client's name or link to the website -- two things that the laws and the courts have been pretty clear in saying is perfectly legal over the years.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Bollocks
Argh!!! I'll be linkin' and postin' and pilferin' and testin' their will, yes aye will...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They also ban clicking on their ads if you don't actually want to become a customer.
Sounds about right that a lawfirm would have this type of wording. I might just have to link to their site. Wonder how many inbound links they will have in a week.
Of course, maybe that was their intention.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's out of embarrassment
So I just took a look at their source code. No wonder they don't want anyone to see it - for a "technology specialist law firm" (which self-describes in the META tags as 'Top rated internet lawyer'), their code appears to have been written by a drunk teenager in the late 90's. It's all tables, and amazingly, all nested tables at that. There's not a single DIV on the entire page.
Incidentally, I did not view the source code. I used Firefox's Firebug to inspect the DOM - which is completely different and therefore, since not explicitly forbidden, is allowed.
What if I look at the source code BEFORE I find the user agreement? What then?
I thought law firms knew that implicit agreement doesn't work anymore.
Legal notice: By reading any of my comments found anywhere on the internet you agree not to argue with me or drink milk.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Marketing
The law firm doesn't even allow its own clients to say they're represented by the firm without permission.
It is unusual for a law firm to be that embarrassed by its own clients.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Gotcha
You are not allowed to read this comment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anon
You just lost the game.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
???
that was stupid
haha, ill botnet their link. enjoy the bandwidth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Show them how you feel
use their contact form to tell them how pissed you are (anon of course, cause they would probably sue you for using your right to free speech without permission) http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/legal-matter....
Put them as the "other party" and for how did you hear about them... well.... its all over the net how retarded they are, just pick one (or 5)....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
doh!
I like milk. now what'll I drink with my cookies ?
there should have been some disclaimer about the disclaimer ...
hey, I know - how about a recursive disclaimer?!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Amusing
I definitely just looked at the source code. I'M GONNA GET SUED!
Seriously though, the web site layout sucks, and John Dozier sounds like a total douchebag. He's recently been named a 'SUPER LAWYER'. Big f---ing deal.
"Founder (1994) of first Venture Fund backed e-commerce technology company in Central Virginia. "
HOLY SH--! CENTRAL VIRGINIA!
"Founder of award-winning technology companies, he brings to the table a detailed understanding of the dynamics of the law and business."
Yet, with statements like "We do not permit you to view such code..." he proves he's a complete moron. Yes John Dozier of Dozier Internet Law, P.C., you are a failure.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Anon
Oh, you just suck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: embarrassed
"It is unusual for a law firm to be that embarrassed by its own clients."
Oh I don't know. What about whoever represented Michael Jackson or (totally unrelated) whoever represents paedophiles.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
it's so exciting to do something so ILLEGAL!!
next thing i'm gonna do is hold an armed robbery at my local bank!!!!
they should sue MS and Firebox for having "View Source" button on the browser since it allows such violation of copyright....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stupid Lawyers
If they're so worried about their HTML and since they are 'Internet lawyers' You would think they would at least register their own domain name. dozierinternetlawPC.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm..
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ok, I better not let my browser see it either!!! It might tell me!!
No worries, I'll be sure to not look at ANY of it!! :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment
Goddamit!! I sitting here, reading away and ended up having to spit my milk out. It will take me hours to clean up this mess!!
Of course, this is all my fault as I could have just held the milk in my mouth (and not swallowed ala Bill Clinton )?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Big Idea!
Let's pull together a team to copywrite the "copywrite symbol" and sue Dozier for using our logo and likeness.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
We need to copyright the @ sign and the . if they are not already copyrighted. Then we can sue idiot companies like that for having domain names. ;p
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That user agreement sounds like it was written by a 7th grader for a social studies project.
we also are intimately familiar with the “hacking” industry.
Quite the "industry" indeed (maybe they should look up the legal definition?).
in addition, you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way since we do not want anyone copying us.
Again, excellent legal terminology. I would probably hire these guys, for my social studies project.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Big Idea!
You'd have to put a copyright symbol on the copyright symbol...ad infinitum...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
John Dozier - quality of his services?
I think it would be wrong to allege that John Dozier is not a qualified technology attorney just because he allegedly attempts to restrict rights which are understood to be already well established through current era precedence, in common practice, and regarded almost unanimously (perhaps unanimously, except by him) as legal. On the other hand, his contentions might make a reasonable person suspect of the quality of his services. John Dozier or John Dozier ... you decide. EP
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
technical question
Do they allege they own the whole HTML code? What about the tags?
Consider a hyperlink:
A search engine we like
Do they own: 'A search engine we like'?
Do they think they own: all links to Yahoo with text 'A search engine we like'
Or more, do they think they own: all links to Yahoo using the '' tag
Could it be I am now violating their copyright by linking to Yahoo!, or only if my links says "A search engine we like"?
Or does the copyright apply only to the whole webpage... meaning I cannot copy their entire source code and post it on myshadyservers.com as a phishing expedition?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
access driver the admin password or would that be wrong
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This dork just taking advantage of the Streisand effect... Don't feed the trolls...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hilarious Conclusion
The sure way to police this is to replace the home page with some sort of EULA.
'YOU MAY NOT VIEW THIS WEB SITE WITHOUT AGREEING TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS:
1. YOU MAY NOT VIEW THE SOURCE CODE OF THIS SITE
2. YOU MAY NOT SAVE ANY OF THE IMAGES FEATURED ON THIS SITE
3. YOU MAY NOT USE THE COLOUR SCHEMES FEATURED ON THIS SITE ON YOUR OWN SITE...
etc, etc, etc....
34. ENTER YOUR NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS AND HOME ADDRESS. A PASSWORD WILL BE SENT TO YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS WHICH YOU MAY USE TO ENTER THIS WEB SITE"
I wonder how many people visit that web site... if it's just for a law firm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Thank goodness for John and his team. These big law firms just don't understand how to handle technology litigation. With their trial record, technology expertise, and legal and business perspective, they have been a godsend...."
— Internet Content Company CEO.
You think they got permisson from "Internet Content Company CEO" to post this compliment? Anyone know a good internet lawyer?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I saw their HTML code... will they find out???
It sucks... will they fix it?
Their agreement gets stupider by line and not linearly but exponentially.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
legal implosion
It looks like they'll be one of the first law firms to implode, crushed inside their own compulsive-obsessive zeal to proclaim pointless, impractical laws.
I hope they have fun suing themselves.. on their way to the asylum.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I own my monitor...and all things on it.
I guess their site breaks my copyright protection on all ASCII displayed on my monitor. Maybe I should sue...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They defend spam!
What do expect from the top-ranked "spam lawyer"?
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They own ALL the code?!?!
Dozier Internet Law, P.C. has a lot of intellectual property on our site. For instance, we are the creators of all of the text on this website, and own the “look and feel” of this website. We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content.
Their site runs Zope. Does this mean they think they own all the code for that? I'm sure the maintainers and other users of Zope will be very distraught at this revelation. :)
Oops, did I just quote from their site? Guess I'd better call my lawyers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Isn't it just brand building? Using the Streisand effect to raise his firm's profile?
Doozier should invest in a sport where there's lots of performance altering substance abuse and choose the most rehab-worthy athletes : the scandal-that-is-actually-just-free-press-for-the-sponsor thing actually works.
Wait nm it's funnier as is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Computer Destruction?
Do they realize that by viewing the site your computer already copied the code down through the internet and on to it's RAM and HDD? Do we have to destroy our PC's now?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Show them how you feel
I have followed your excellent advice and completed a 'Legal Matter Submission' form for the clockwork loonies who run that legal sideshow. I do hope that it brings a little ray of sunshine into their dreary grey lives.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment
Damn.. and I like milk! :(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Simple way around all this
View their HTML in Google's cache instead of from their website. If they have a problem with that, they can sue the great googly woogly for republishing and distributing their info.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I bet those retards didn't get Honda's permission to post a picture of their bike if they want to play that stupid game. You'd think the publicity of having someone link your shit would be great. Next you'll see them trying to sue the world for everyone using the same font as them. These people are not very bright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Do I have to comment on this?
Do I have to comment on this?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
“look and feel”
Hmm,they own the “look and feel” of their site. Boy they're REALLY behind the times. Didn't the trial court explicitly say in the Apple v Microsoft case back in the early 90's that you can't copyright the “look and feel” of something? So that would only make them about, erm, 16 or so years behind current case law.
Okay, no. I just looked it up on Wikipedia. That Apple v Microsoft ruling never came because Apple had already given MS a license for something or other that apparently covered it. However there was another case, Lotus v Borland, where the copyright claim based on a similar principle was thrown out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
just one more reason to shoot all the lawyers and start over
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment
I used Opera's custom Style Sheets menu to display the page elements within the rendered page. Sadly, they "used" Adobe GoLive! for there page design.
I think that Frontpage actually would be better than this was.
You made no restrictions about chocolate milk. The chocolate cow union is pleased.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your Joking ? or did miss that day in Law School ?
see the law at work here > www.myblog.110mb.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bollocks
I got the pictures of this dude > www.myblog.110mb.com
at a stag party no less !
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oh Noes!
Damn, I'm gonna get sued and it's all their fault!
I just wanna view their page, but their web server keeps sending me all this "source code" that they own! Can't I just view it without getting all this source code?!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
LOL
I'm in your webs
I'm readin your source.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm no lawyer, but doesn't copyright only cover what one can COPY. I don't think you can copyright something and claim that means other people aren't allowed to see it. I have to wonder if these geniuses are actually lawyers. They seem to be making this up as they go.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyright fraud
These guys are actively participating in copyright fraud, i.e. asserting rights they do not have.
Absolutely nothing in copyright law prevents somebody from looking at any source code.
Copyright law deals with two specific rights: 1) authorizing who may make a DUPLICATE of a work, and 2) asserting that proper CREDIT is given for a work.
A reverse engineering ban may be present in a civil contract, but pointing at copyright is just bollocks, and that points to the mountain-scale incompetence of this law firm.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uhh they have errors in their code to top it all off?
Look:
I'm pretty sure that should say "class" not "cass," lmao owned
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Simple Fix
The site should just be a series of images or pdfs. That way the source code is either irrelevant or secured.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
im in ur...
[Insert joke here]
[Insert punchline here]
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this HAS to be a joke
"OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004"
They're using open source code in their contact form and claiming they own all the code?
btw someone should tell them their cookie's (lol) which they think allow them to monitor all activity don't work too well (same as urchins) if the user blocks scripts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
PS
For more information contact John W. Dozier, Jr. at jwd@cybertriallawyer.com
lol eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A ray of hope?
I had a thought:
Perhaps, and I know this is a long shot, but just MAYBE... they're trying to make this as ludicrous as possible in response to things like the NFL and MLB claiming that they "own" the stats to their game (in the case of MLB) or that you can't say the word "Superbowl" without their permission (The NFL). Perhaps this is their way of having someone take the concept and test it in court to point out just how over-blown and insane all this copyright bs is.
As for their clients not being able to tell people who is representing them, two things :
1.) That's 'patently' stupid, as you've just ruined your main source of free advertisement.
2.) It's against ethics. An example : You assault me, I take you to court. From that point on, I should not speak to you except through your lawyer. If you cannot tell me who that person is, I have no way to get a hold of you, nor does my lawyer. (something my fiancee pointed out, she's not a lawyer, just someone with a law degree.)
Just a thought :-
Asmo
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I am not suggesting you do this, but you could go here and upload some DRM'd MP3s and get them busted for distributing copyrighted songs.
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/FileLibrary
The upload feature works.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A Bold, Ridiculous Marketing Strategy - Is this Fi
This is the most interesting marketing strategy I've ever seen. [mocking chuckle] Step #1: Build A Web Site to tell people about your services. Step #2: Do everything you can to make it invisible to the people who don't know about you yet who may want to find you. Step #3: Do everything you can to make sure the people who DO know about you (your clients) don't tell anyone about you. Step #4: Make yourself famous by showing everyone how far you're willing to go in the name of trying to be invisible. Brilliant. This makes my day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Is this even a real law firm?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not even by the most asininely strict copyright in
... could viewing HTML source be considered a copyright violation.
Viewing copyrighted content is not copyright infringement, no matter what these guys say. Heck, if it were, you wouldn't even be allowed to read that book you just bought, because you'd be viewing material protected by copyright!
So what's left? Trade secret status? Nope. They are willfully choosing to transmit that material in plain text to you, trusting that your browser will faithfully render it as intended. If they want it to be secret, they should not be sending it to you in the first place.
That said, they do have legitimate copyright claims on their HTML code, and people who copy that code and use it elsewhere could potentially be prosecuted for copyright infringement, but there's absolutely no possible way they could nail you for it simply because you happened to view the HTML, even if they could somehow tell that was what you were doing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
How do people this incompetent even brush their teeth without sticking the brush up their damn nose?
IANAL, but you could definitely upload DRM'ed files here and then claim that they're facilitating piracy. WTF, eh?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They defend spammers. That tells me EVERYTHING I want to know about them. (in my own opinion, based on on common knowledge concerning the firm's practices)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why have an upload feature at all?
It looks like example code lifted from some HTML 4.0 How To manual+CD
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
But the site design sucks?
If someone is going to be as silly as this in claiming that viewing their HTML source is unauthorized then they should at least have a *very* nice website to offset the silliness. In this case, the site design sucks so bad they should be inviting users to submit HTML and CSS code to improve it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Egad!
Hmm, seems that they're hosting pr0n... Shame on the uploader (for not adding more!).
On the homepage - "Click here to download the full article". Isn't that entrapment?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uhh, I thought they knew inet law?
Reading that, I can clearly see that I would not want them as my internet lawyers if they don't even know proper internet law. Or maybe I am just being unreasonable? :)
Sounds to me like someone just got their law degree and declared themselves internet lawyers just because they saw a web page once.
-X
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They say they own all the code?
They have a Youtube video on their homepage, they surely don't own the code for the Youtube video.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Site Sux anyway
the site totally sux. why the hell would anyone want it. For internet litigation professions they could have spent a little money on the site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
haha
I'm just gonna copy the whole source from the front page and email it to them lol
I'll let you know if they try and sue me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Morons......
This is what happens when you let lawyers roam free. They should be kept in a cage, fed once a week and told no one loves them every day.
But seriously, the yanks surely do lead the way for dumb-ass-ness at times.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
someone please send me this url!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AHHHH!
what really takes the cake, is that it doesn't look like they've copyrighted their site at all, I wasn't able to pull it up searching on copyright.gov. Just because you put the little symbol on your stuff, doesn't make it legal.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Yet they host copyrighted files
You can find this out by simply going to, http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/Britney%20Spears%20-Gimme%20More.mp3
T hey are hosting, and distributing unauthorized works by Britney Spears. This is a travesty, an actual law firm committing copyright infringement, the same crime they not so politely ask others not to commit against them.
I think a maximum penalty judgment is deserved in this case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Big Idea!
Anybody have a website older than theirs? Send them a cease and desist letter demanding they remove the HTML tag (a less than sign, followed by HTML, followed by a greater than sign ... silly forum software, removing even a munged copy of the tag) from their website because you claim they copied it from your site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
Who do we report this crime to?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
looks awful
eww that site looks awful, i'd sue myself for using their code
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm gonna get sued...
I'm pretty sure every web page that I've made has included body and html tags! does this mean that I've copied their ``intellectual" property?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
Hrm... is this legal?
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/preteen_sex.jpg
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
I urge you all to to visit http://www.riaa.org/reportpiracy.php and report this internet law firm as true internet pirates for hosting those unauthorized copies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Suprised...
... the site hasn't been defaced yet. Anyone given a shout out to the alt.hackers.malicious USENET newsgroup yet?
*Wink* *Wink*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Nobody asked for your permission or authorization. If you leave a book lying on the sidewalk (putlic domain like the internet), then you can't fault/forbid them for opening it an reading it. Duh!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: It's out of embarrassment
I thought it was Monica that didn't swallow? Otherwise there wouldn't have been any DNA evidence.. :p
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
here's one opinion of them
http://pm.typepad.com/professional_marketing_bl/2006/09/marketers_laugh.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That is,
the "super lawyer" aspect of their ego.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Page Info
There was no restriction on using PageInfo in firefox and it had a few interesting things to say
note page info on the privacy policy has this gem
KEYWORDS = 'keywords go in here'
also says the page was generated by Adobe GoLive.
I suspect that means that they haven't viewed the source either.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lawl
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/developers
They claim to be web developers themselves, yet their page source absolutely sucks? I've seen better HTML from a 4 year old!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So they own all copyright in there code huh?
Well a quick glance at the alleged forbidden source code. shows an interesting tid-bit in there javascript
namely a copyright notice for guess what not them
// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, copyright 2004
wow somehow they own this copyright, yet maintain the original authors name for completeness right?
Im sure Adobe would be proud to have there name stomped on
im sure they own the copyright to that aswell
Even though the claims in there UA, are completely unfounded, but there makeing claims on others true copyrights. they should have sued the W3C for comming up with html.
Who would hire these people?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm... music...
No, not the Britney Spears, but the Hillsong United might be music (not as if I've listened to it... ;)...it sure has the MIMEtype...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
An interesting perspective on the internet from Jo
From 01/19/06: Government wrestles Google for search records
An attorney who specializes in Internet law said that, at first glance, there doesn't seem to be a privacy issue involved in the government's request.
"The only time privacy comes into play in my view is when there is personally identifiable information for activities attributable to a particular individual," said John W. Dozier Jr., managing partner at Dozier Internet Law PC in Glen Allen, Va.
"My understanding is that the government isn't attempting to attribute any particular online activity to a particular person. They’re trying to understand a broad segment activities," added Dozier, who isn't involved in this case.
If that is the case, this is a very common type of discovery procedure attorneys use to assemble information that is pertinent and would aide in a litigation, Dozier said. It would be a different matter if the government were requesting IP addresses, in which case concerns about individuals' privacy would be warranted, Dozier said.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is the Law Firm of Jackass, Douchebag & Fuck
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bollocks
source code! oh no h@x! lol
html>
head>
base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/" />
title>User Agreement/Privacy Policy
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Amusing
central virginia
is that where the hillbillies are. that would explain it...inbreeding
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Who in their right mind would hire these guys?
And for that matter, who in their right mind would copy their ugly a** source code?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: AHHHH!
Actually, I think it does. Registering a copyright just makes it easier to prove.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Extortionists?
(link to article)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Are you dumber than we are?
Wouldn't it me more direct to just say: "We at Dozier Internet Law, P.C. (the firm that cannot be named) are dumb, but we can use big words. If you are dumber than us, we welcome your business."
BTW, this comment is owned by me, and if you read it you must pay be five cents. Plus another 5 for this sentence. Yes, and this one too, yes, and this one also.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I thought Al Gore invented the Internet. Doesn't he own the copyright to all content on the www. That may prove to be another inconvenient truth!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Remove all "EXAMPLE" code before doing something s
They have ALL the ZOPE defaults remaining on their site - swap away folks:
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What tards
Holy crap... I actually cannot believe to what extent law firms in the US will go to. I also used the Firefox firebug to view the DOM which according to their notice is not deemed illegal.. and boy oh boy does that code suck... I don't blame them for not allowing people to see it.. For an "internet" specialist law firm one would at least expect them to have decent code. Flagrant use of style in the tags... I mean come on... that is HTML 101!!! tards!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just because you have a law degree ...
... doesn't mean you ain't bat-shit crazy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I iz in ur source code, P0WNing your ass!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Don't want to use yer fskin code, it's crap anyway
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Click their google adds
Just search for "Internet Law" on google, and then click their "Dozier Internet Law" add. If enough people do this, I think they will reconsider making such bullshit copyright demands.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think they need to put Common Sence 101 and Social Ethics 101 as a main course in lawshool. Do lawyers need to check their brain along with their coat when they enter their workplace .. come on .. this is just stupid. Imagine how much this is costing the justice system. :P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
H4 H4
1'm 1|/| uR Src r34D1N6 Ur C0d3
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Maybe they should brush up on copyright law
Copyright controls essential distribution and duplication rights. Copyright has no say what I can do with the book I bought. I can burn it or mulch it or read it or give it to friends. What I cannot do is duplicate and disseminate copies. It's called Copyright for a reason, the right to make copies! Duh.
So the firm, who has already duplicated and transmitted their html code to my computer, so that it is in my computer's ram already, and on my computer's disk in the cache already, is trying to say I can't read it. Nevermind that I have (using tools) already *read it*. Copyright does not cover what I may do with the content that they have willingly transmitted to me. My browser requested the HTML; their server acceeded and sent the HTML. The transmission has already occurred, and I have the right to do anything with I please, save make and retransmit copies, or possibly make a public performance out of it.
This would be merely silly, and not be so embarassing, except that this organization purports to be a law firm.