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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, html, view source
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bollocks
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bollocks
at a stag party no less !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bollocks
html>
head>
base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/" />
title>User Agreement/Privacy Policy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
It's out of embarrassment
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's out of embarrassment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
Needs to do the world a favor and back away from the keyboard and take up knitting.
They also do NOT own the rights to all of the code since they are calling Urchin, GeoTrust, etc.
Basically, they've made the /FAIL/ at intarweb club.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's out of embarrassment
I had a lot of fun running the W3C HTML validator on both the legal notice and their home page...
results are, respect. 63 and 68 errors...
I hope they work better than their web designer's work.
I hope they comply with law better than their web designer comply with standards and good practicies and state of the art...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing
It is unusual for a law firm to be that embarrassed by its own clients.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotcha
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anon
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
???
haha, ill botnet their link. enjoy the bandwidth.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Show them how you feel
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show them how you feel
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show them how you feel
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url=cybertriallawyer.com, and appears to be the main jerk's work account.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
doh!
there should have been some disclaimer about the disclaimer ...
hey, I know - how about a recursive disclaimer?!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Amusing
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amusing
is that where the hillbillies are. that would explain it...inbreeding
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: embarrassed
Oh I don't know. What about whoever represented Michael Jackson or (totally unrelated) whoever represents paedophiles.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: embarrassed
How would you feel if you where charged with being a paedophile, even though you know that you're not guilty. How would you protect yourself from (insane penalties, 30+years) if all lawyers were to embarased to represent you?
Recent aqquitals show that even though you're proven not guilty, you will still be marked as a paedophile by most of the community, and thereby have your life ruined.
Everyone should have the right to legal representation, regardless of how biased the community might be towards whatever alledged crime(s) you may or may not have commited.
You sir, are a morron.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Record
Once legal action takes place, EVERYTHING is entered into PUBLIC RECORD, which means, I can point out that So-and-so is a client of this law firm, reference the legal action in the Public Record, and BINGO, they loose...
The very minute they sue someone over viewing their HTML source, the same thing happens. They loose their rights to protect the source from view because it would be entered into the PUBLIC RECORD...
But then, any 2-bit lawyer would know that...so I wouldn't hire these bozos if they don't even know what they are doing...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Lawyers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Lawyers
Link not working. Use this
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No worries, I'll be sure to not look at ANY of it!! :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Idea!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Idea!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Idea!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
John Dozier - quality of his services?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
technical question
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious Conclusion
'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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
— 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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It sucks... will they fix it?
Their agreement gets stupider by line and not linearly but exponentially.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
legal implosion
I hope they have fun suing themselves.. on their way to the asylum.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I own my monitor...and all things on it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They defend spam!
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They own ALL the code?!?!
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Computer Destruction?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple way around all this
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I have to comment on this?
Do I have to comment on this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
“look and feel”
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Your Joking ? or did miss that day in Law School ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Noes!
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
I'm readin your source.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright fraud
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Look:
I'm pretty sure that should say "class" not "cass," lmao owned
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Fix
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
im in ur...
[Insert punchline here]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
this HAS to be a joke
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
PS
lol eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A ray of hope?
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/FileLibrary
The upload feature works.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IANAL, but you could definitely upload DRM'ed files here and then claim that they're facilitating piracy. WTF, eh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
A Bold, Ridiculous Marketing Strategy - Is this Fi
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even by the most asininely strict copyright in
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Why have an upload feature at all?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
But the site design sucks?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Egad!
On the homepage - "Click here to download the full article". Isn't that entrapment?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh, I thought they knew inet law?
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
They say they own all the code?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The Site Sux anyway
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
haha
I'll let you know if they try and sue me
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons......
But seriously, the yanks surely do lead the way for dumb-ass-ness at times.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
AHHHH!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AHHHH!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet they host copyrighted files
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/preteen_sex.jpg
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
looks awful
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm gonna get sued...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Suprised...
*Wink* *Wink*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
here's one opinion of them
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
That is,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Page Info
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawl
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
So they own all copyright in there code huh?
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm... music...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
And for that matter, who in their right mind would copy their ugly a** source code?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Extortionists?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you dumber than we are?
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 | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Remove all "EXAMPLE" code before doing something s
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What tards
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you have a law degree ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Click their google adds
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
1'm 1|/| uR Src r34D1N6 Ur C0d3
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they should brush up on copyright law
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
These people are REALLY dumb...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this illegal
http://www.freesome.com/node/233
I wonder who would be infringing in this case - me for writing the code... oyu for viewing my blog - or maybe my host!!
wowsers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What about archive.org?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cybertriallawyer.com/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Errr, what?
By using our website, you agree to the following:
At Dozier Internet Law, P.C. we do not simply post a “legal sounding” user agreement. That is because we customize every one of our user agreements to fit the specific needs of our clients
Sounds very "legal sounding" to me, but if you can't be arsed to customise your own agreement, how do you expect people to take you seriously?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Who wants the HTML?
cass="bodyB"
Unless Mama Cass is a new sort of attribute, the people are morons.
Plus, if that were the case, my company could sue a half dozen other companies for stealing our "look and feel" -- something *OUR* legal dept. told us we couldn't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
We are all getting sued!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the internet law firm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Examples folder removed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Insert lolcats here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
right.
I'm suing the next person that looks at my face. because its my property. MINE!!! all mine!
i hope copies of their HTML get posted everywhere. It would probably make an intresting wallpaper for a tea room.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Me Too
Heil Money!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
their javascript
= 0) && (bAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/3") >= 0) && (bAgent.indexOf("Mac") >= 0))
return true; /* dont follow link */
else return false; /* dont follow link */
}
CSStopExecution=false;
function CSAction(array) {return CSAction2(CSAct, array);}
function CSAction2(fct, array) {
var result;
for (var i=0;i
// -->
PRRRRRRRA!!!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy-Pase infringement
"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...."
"...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."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
so...
SUE the law firm for copyright infringement for 'making available' their html source code!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
html
They changed the user agrement as well, it just says use not view etc now... power to the people !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can't
this is what i think..
he is saying copyright-infringement due to the fact that when you View the sit it gets saved as a file(s) in your Internet temp folder.. therefore its being copied and thats called copyright-infringement
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You C
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF??
I wonder if they will work with me to stop the bill collectors...do they do credit repair work?
:?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Browsers rendering the site can be illegal
I think thats very correct.
So Microsoft and Mozilla should not render their site.
Isn't that cool
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, they should stop blasting their proprietary HTML over the innernuts, eh?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Linguistics
I find it funny that they infer that because they own the copyright of the source code, you can't view it, but they own the copyright of the content, and apparently you can view THAT.
I think it's ironic that they put their source code on a publicly available server... how do they know that we'll be viewing it on a browser? what if I use unix's curl command to view it? I might actually prefer reading web pages as HTML source... there's a lot of assumption there ;-)
In fact, it's impossible to read the file WITHOUT copying it to your computer... 100%, verbatim, duplication type... erm... copying. That's just stupid. lol. What idiots.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
>?central virginia
>is that where the hillbillies are. that would explain .
>it...inbreeding
Wow, Jammer! You're so smart!! I'm impressed!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA's next attorney ??
Better be careful if you decide to 'begin receiving the security and power of the Dozier Copyright Infringement Warning Button!!'
"We make no representations, express or implied, concerning the functionality, security, or technical integrity of the button, ..."
I found the DCIWB functional - that was to give me a good laugh that "Super John" thinks anyone could believe such crap.
As to their User Agreement:
"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."
The RIAA really need to retain these guys. "Super John" would rake the dollars in for them by sueing everyone who listens to any music cd's they purchased. PR victory for the RIAA too - No more unpopular and expensive p2p lawsuits required, they can simply bug your house/car/workplace to prove you listened to the music.
"We do not permit our website to be 'spidered', or a program run through the website, for purposes of obtaining email addresses to be used in commercial email campaigns."
You know, the sort of things our clients do.
"Although we have very high levels of security in place, we also are intimately familiar with the “hacking” industry."
We bill them monthly. But we call them clients when we do that.
"Dozier Internet Law is a one stop online attorney, web attorney, internet attorney, and website attorney."
Exactly, who would make more than one stop at "Bull" Dozier's website.
Anyone else noticed that Dozier Internet Law's acronym is DIL
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
here's there ow so precion source!!
Internet Lawyer, Trademark Infringement Lawyer, Domain Name Dispute Specialist!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Just do a Google search for Bull Dozier Law, and you will see that his new SUCKS web presence rates higher than his own web site.
By the way Mike, I am glad to see that you finally are on the right side of an issue. And as you can see, even though I think you a dead wrong about IP issues in general I have been easy on you. The Dozier Bull.... website demonstrates this in spades.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Breathtaking stupidity ... but good for a laugh!
Let's put it this way: If I had a web-related legal issue, CyberTrialLawyer (Dozier and Dozier ... sound like a bunch of sleepy dwarves!) wouldn't even make last place on my list of places to seek help. These twits are so awful, they're actually quite funny.
Oh ... yes, I pulled copies of the HTML ... and it IS awful. Dozie, old fella, have no fear of anyone copying "your" HTML ... you need a better web designer. And as for look-and-feel, aside from you being YEARS behind the (legal) times, several of the basic tenets of design/presentation have been completely ignored on your site. So, Johno, you're quite safe there. Your poor investment will not be cloned!
You are paranoid, poorly-informed, breathtakingly arrogant and should perhaps stick to chasing ambulances for a living ... perhaps not. Retire. It'd be kinder all round.
Wow.
Good luck!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
On being a Pioneer ...
Something suggests to me that your contribution is more along the lines of black humor ... dry wit. But without the wit or the humor.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is absolutely hilarious
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
im hot
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh yeah
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
no source view
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply