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 by Sir LinkALot on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 1:35pm
Argh!!! I'll be linkin' and postin' and pilferin' and testin' their will, yes aye will...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by RandomThoughts on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 1:51pm
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 by Brad on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 1:54pm
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 by Joe Smith on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:07pm
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 by Witty Nickname on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:28pm
You are not allowed to read this comment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anon by Anonymous on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:40pm
You just lost the game.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
??? by anthony on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:44pm
that was stupid
haha, ill botnet their link. enjoy the bandwidth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Show them how you feel by brwyatt on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:50pm
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! by CharlieHorse on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:52pm
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 by D on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:57pm
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 by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 2:58pm
Oh, you just suck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: embarrassed by Stan Nasty on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:05pm
"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)
by icepick314 on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:08pm
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 by Matt H on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:09pm
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.. by Zope on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:18pm
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Overcast on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:19pm
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 by Larry on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:23pm
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! by CORE on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:23pm
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)
by Amethyst on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:52pm
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)
by T.J. on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 3:55pm
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! by Dan on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:00pm
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? by EP on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:10pm
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 by Jim on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:20pm
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)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:33pm
access driver the admin password or would that be wrong
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:36pm
This dork just taking advantage of the Streisand effect... Don't feed the trolls...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hilarious Conclusion by Boris Jacobsen on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:50pm
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)
by Suehappycountry on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 4:56pm
"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)
by Mike on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 5:23pm
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 by Hoby on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 5:38pm
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. by Squidly on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 5:58pm
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! by HalS on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 6:02pm
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?!?! by Doubletwist on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 6:15pm
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)
by flo on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 6:17pm
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? by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 6:25pm
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 by Ned Lud on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 7:05pm
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 by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 7:27pm
Damn.. and I like milk! :(
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Simple way around all this by wheel on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 8:06pm
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)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 8:26pm
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? by Dave Barnes on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 9:11pm
Do I have to comment on this?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
“look and feel” by avatar28 on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 9:18pm
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)
by anon on Oct 17th, 2007 @ 10:32pm
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 by Sam on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 1:46am
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 ? by Tom Gunn on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 1:51am
see the law at work here > www.myblog.110mb.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bollocks by SamIam on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 1:54am
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! by 40 on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:23am
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 by roflcopter on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:27am
I'm in your webs
I'm readin your source.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by oldnavy84 on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:31am
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 by Rick Falkvinge (pp) on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:44am
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)
by Fern on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:50am
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 by Kris Brixon on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 6:24am
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... by Lolcoaster on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 6:37am
[Insert joke here]
[Insert punchline here]
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
this HAS to be a joke by magnus on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 7:52am
"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 by Magnus on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 7:55am
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? by Asmodeus on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:45am
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)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 9:21am
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 by Steffan Antonas on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 10:01am
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)
by Alexander on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 10:42am
Is this even a real law firm?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not even by the most asininely strict copyright in by Mark on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 10:50am
... 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: by mdmadph on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 11:37am
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)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 12:08pm
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? by JustMatt on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 12:13pm
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? by Jamie on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 12:26pm
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! by Ham On The Bone on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 1:26pm
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? by xman1 on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 2:12pm
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? by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 3:32pm
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 by Josh Smith on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:09pm
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 by Command4er on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:09pm
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...... by Llian on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:17pm
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)
by matt on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:19pm
someone please send me this url!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
AHHHH! by anonymous coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:19pm
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 by Joshua on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:32pm
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! by Steve on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:33pm
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 by kins on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:36pm
Who do we report this crime to?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
looks awful by dug on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:39pm
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... by some guy on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:43pm
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 by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:44pm
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 by Turghen on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:44pm
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... by Crackbot on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:44pm
... 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)
by Axel on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 4:54pm
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 by bodoor on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:00pm
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 by Michael on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:30pm
http://pm.typepad.com/professional_marketing_bl/2006/09/marketers_laugh.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That is, by Michael on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 5:32pm
the "super lawyer" aspect of their ego.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Page Info by konrad on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 6:00pm
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 by Jessica on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 6:01pm
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? by Liothen on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 6:48pm
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... by anon on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 7:26pm
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 by Anon on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 7:28pm
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)
by Matt on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 7:46pm
This is the Law Firm of Jackass, Douchebag & Fuck
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bollocks by omg hax! on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:06pm
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 by jammer mchammer on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:19pm
central virginia
is that where the hillbillies are. that would explain it...inbreeding
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by James R. on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:31pm
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! by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:40pm
Actually, I think it does. Registering a copyright just makes it easier to prove.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Extortionists? by Mike Smedley on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:51pm
(link to article)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Are you dumber than we are? by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 9:34pm
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)
by ldgalaxy on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 9:36pm
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 by Alexander Hamilton on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 9:39pm
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 by Werner on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 10:22pm
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 ... by Anonymous Coward on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 10:50pm
... doesn't mean you ain't bat-shit crazy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by J on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 12:21am
I iz in ur source code, P0WNing your ass!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jeff Jeffty Jeff (born on the 1st of Jeff, 19Jeftt on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 12:25am
Don't want to use yer fskin code, it's crap anyway
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Click their google adds by Coldie on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 2:52am
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)
by Jakob Einar on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 2:54am
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)
by adam on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 3:47am
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 by Joshua Rodman on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 3:58am
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.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment by Adam on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 4:05am
Seriously I was finishing my milk just before I got to 'or drink milk.'
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment by Deathshadow on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 4:34am
Yup. No doctype, layout is broken in large fonts due to stuff like using twenty odd in a row - and any web developer that doesn't know what's wrong with:
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 comment) (link to this comment)
These people are REALLY dumb... by Amused on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 5:36am
Everyone who goes to the site is by definition downloading the HTML. So no one can visit the site without committing copyright infringement? Why even have a site?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: embarrassed by Cubbs on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 5:44am
"whoever represents paedophiles."
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Is this illegal by Pete Hobson on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 6:40am
I wonder out loud if its illegal to use code rather than the stated 'view source' 'method :) here i grab the whole fornt page and pop it into a text box... in onle line of code :)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 6:41am
All your base are belong to us
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Show them how you feel by Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 7:04am
If you really want to show them how you feel, send old Johnny an email at jwd@cybertriallawyer.com. The e-mail address is publicly posted at
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?url=cybertriallawyer.com, and appears to be the main jerk's work account.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What about archive.org? by ss on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 7:35am
What about archive.org?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cybertriallawyer.com/
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Errr, what? by Nik on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 7:44am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Really? Who wants the HTML? by APS on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 8:12am
I don't know why one would even want to look at such a slapdash, shoddily built site, from an HTML side. There's a dozen paragraph tags that say:
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 comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 8:23am
"Our firm has handled 252 legal matters in the past two years in the following areas with a special emphasis on blogger misconduct."
We are all getting sued!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
the internet law firm by epic on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 8:29am
doesn't have an email address or a clue
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow by Mephron on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 8:48am
I guess you can still get Delusional Idiocy In A Can in some places.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Examples folder removed by Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 9:08am
The Examples folder has been removed: it looks like they do some maintenance after all
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by vinewsreader on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 9:16am
Guess I can no longer use curl as my web browser...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Insert lolcats here by Chris Charabaruk on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 9:22am
Im on ur website, viewin ur htmls...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
right. by wtf? on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 9:38am
wow. i dont know. to me thats just selfish and conceited.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Me Too by Sgt. Guffy on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 10:49am
Now I am beginning to understand what "Corporate Fascism" means.
Heil Money!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
their javascript by barr on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 10:53am
= 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 comment) (link to this comment)
Copy-Pase infringement by Drew on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 11:00am
You know, they could even sue you for copy-pasting part of their user agreement.
"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 comment) (link to this comment)
Public Record by Quid-Pro-Quoe on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 11:17am
There is one problem with this argument...
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 comment) (link to this comment)
by joe on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 12:43pm
You cannot look at their source code because then you are copying it into your BRAIN!
so...
SUE the law firm for copyright infringement for 'making available' their html source code!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by MrGonz--Internet Content Company CEO on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 1:11pm
I wonder why the quoted person did not allow the use of their name? Maybe the person has copyrighted their own name! Or maybe they didn't want to be embarrassed by just self-sourced reviews!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
html by Asigot on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 2:06pm
I normaly add a bit at the top of my code saying use it if you want but dont copy it whole IE with graphics.
They changed the user agrement as well, it just says use not view etc now... power to the people !
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: html by D on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 6:54pm
They didn't change the user agreement I just looked at it. It's still the same stupidity.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can't by dl0711 on Oct 19th, 2007 @ 7:05pm
I think that he/she is trying to make a point with the RIAA/MPAA and the whole copyright-infringement issues..
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 comment) (link to this comment)
WTF?? by Ineedof CreditHelp on Oct 21st, 2007 @ 7:37pm
"An ISP obtained a $1 Billion judgment in Iowa Federal Court and the client retained us to attempt to defend subsequent efforts at collecting and to defend individuals sued."
I wonder if they will work with me to stop the bill collectors...do they do credit repair work?
:?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You C by SillyValley on Oct 21st, 2007 @ 9:06pm
This whole thing has been one way to get a whole lot of hits. No one cares what geeky bloggers say
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Browsers rendering the site can be illegal by Raam on Oct 22nd, 2007 @ 1:12am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
by mojo on Oct 23rd, 2007 @ 2:23pm
Ah, those Legal Eagles, gotta love 'em.
Obviously, they should stop blasting their proprietary HTML over the innernuts, eh?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Linguistics by random8r on Oct 24th, 2007 @ 4:39am
If one linguistically analyses the wording of that "terms and conditions", one realises that it's not even in sync with itself. Their thoughts aren't logically and systematically rendered OR realised.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Oct 28th, 2007 @ 9:14am
>Re: Amusing by jammer mchammer on Oct 18th, 2007 @ 8:19pm
>?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 comment) (link to this comment)
RIAA's next attorney ?? by Thermal Ions on Nov 2nd, 2007 @ 9:45am
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 comment) (link to this comment)
here's there ow so precion source!! by chris on Nov 23rd, 2007 @ 10:19am
Internet Lawyer, Trademark Infringement Lawyer, Domain Name Dispute Specialist!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment by Joe Joe Jr. on Nov 27th, 2007 @ 11:10pm
Your reply was sweet. The sarcasm at the end was a nice touch. Hating on tables was pretty lame, though, but most "web designers" nowadays do, so I'll give ya some latitude. Peace.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Ronald J Riley on Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:50am
Just a reminder that he and his client received much more than they bargained for after sending some of their inane threats to www.InventorEd.org and also a blogger. See www.CyberTrialLawyer-SUCKS.com and www.InventorEd.org/caution/inventor-link/ for an example of how I think that threats of SLAPP actions should be dealt with. Personally I think that leaving all those sucks domains available says volumes about Dozier's competence.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Breathtaking stupidity ... but good for a laugh! by Hieronymous Maximus on Nov 30th, 2007 @ 4:17am
This is a spoof, isn't it?
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 comment) (link to this comment)
On being a Pioneer ... by Hieronymous Maximus on Nov 30th, 2007 @ 4:28am
Johno, you punt yourself as a pioneer in Internet Law ... hmmm ... remember, not all pioneers come from the deeper pools of talent and true grit. Successful pioneers are those who make a positive contribution to development.
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's out of embarrassment by Fred. Virot on Feb 7th, 2008 @ 9:11am
you're right... Their code is worth hidding!
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 comment) (link to this comment)
This is absolutely hilarious by Jon Harvey on Feb 11th, 2008 @ 1:29pm
I wonder if they will sue my arse off for letting my browser "see" thier website... this has to be a joke right???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment