Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can't View Its Website's HTML Source

from the that's-a-new-one dept

Wed, Oct 17th 2007 1:24pm — Mike Masnick

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

151 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Sir LinkALot, 17 Oct 2007 @ 1:35pm

Bollocks
Argh!!! I'll be linkin' and postin' and pilferin' and testin' their will, yes aye will...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 17 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad, 17 Oct 2007 @ 1:54pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Smith, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:07pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Witty Nickname, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:28pm

Gotcha
You are not allowed to read this comment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:40pm

Anon
You just lost the game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anthony, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:44pm

???
that was stupid

haha, ill botnet their link. enjoy the bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brwyatt, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:50pm

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)....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CharlieHorse, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:52pm

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?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:57pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2007 @ 2:58pm

Re: Anon
Oh, you just suck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stan Nasty, 17 Oct 2007 @ 3:05pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
icepick314, 17 Oct 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....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt H, 17 Oct 2007 @ 3:09pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zope, 17 Oct 2007 @ 3:18pm

Hmm..
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overcast, 17 Oct 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!! :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Larry, 17 Oct 2007 @ 3:23pm

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 )?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CORE, 17 Oct 2007 @ 3:23pm

Big Idea!
Let's pull together a team to copywrite the "copywrite symbol" and sue Dozier for using our logo and likeness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Amethyst, 17 Oct 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
T.J., 17 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:00pm

Re: Big Idea!
You'd have to put a copyright symbol on the copyright symbol...ad infinitum...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EP, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:10pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:20pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:33pm

access driver the admin password or would that be wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:36pm

This dork just taking advantage of the Streisand effect... Don't feed the trolls...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris Jacobsen, 17 Oct 2007 @ 4:50pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suehappycountry, 17 Oct 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 17 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hoby, 17 Oct 2007 @ 5:38pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squidly, 17 Oct 2007 @ 5:58pm

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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HalS, 17 Oct 2007 @ 6:02pm

They defend spam!
What do expect from the top-ranked "spam lawyer"?
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doubletwist, 17 Oct 2007 @ 6:15pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
flo, 17 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2007 @ 6:25pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ned Lud, 17 Oct 2007 @ 7:05pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2007 @ 7:27pm

Re: It's out of embarrassment
Damn.. and I like milk! :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wheel, 17 Oct 2007 @ 8:06pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave Barnes, 17 Oct 2007 @ 9:11pm

Do I have to comment on this?

Do I have to comment on this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
avatar28, 17 Oct 2007 @ 9:18pm

“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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 17 Oct 2007 @ 10:32pm

just one more reason to shoot all the lawyers and start over
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam, 18 Oct 2007 @ 1:46am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Gunn, 18 Oct 2007 @ 1:51am

Your Joking ? or did miss that day in Law School ?
see the law at work here > www.myblog.110mb.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SamIam, 18 Oct 2007 @ 1:54am

Re: Bollocks
I got the pictures of this dude > www.myblog.110mb.com

at a stag party no less !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
40, 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:23am

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?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
roflcopter, 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:27am

LOL
I'm in your webs
I'm readin your source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oldnavy84, 18 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick Falkvinge (pp), 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:44am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fern, 18 Oct 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kris Brixon, 18 Oct 2007 @ 6:24am

Simple Fix
The site should just be a series of images or pdfs. That way the source code is either irrelevant or secured.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lolcoaster, 18 Oct 2007 @ 6:37am

im in ur...
[Insert joke here]
[Insert punchline here]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
magnus, 18 Oct 2007 @ 7:52am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Magnus, 18 Oct 2007 @ 7:55am

PS
For more information contact John W. Dozier, Jr. at jwd@cybertriallawyer.com

lol eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asmodeus, 18 Oct 2007 @ 8:45am

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steffan Antonas, 18 Oct 2007 @ 10:01am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexander, 18 Oct 2007 @ 10:42am

Is this even a real law firm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 18 Oct 2007 @ 10:50am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mdmadph (profile), 18 Oct 2007 @ 11:37am

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 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)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMatt, 18 Oct 2007 @ 12:13pm

Why have an upload feature at all?
It looks like example code lifted from some HTML 4.0 How To manual+CD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 18 Oct 2007 @ 12:26pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ham On The Bone, 18 Oct 2007 @ 1:26pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
xman1, 18 Oct 2007 @ 2:12pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 3:32pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh Smith, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:09pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Command4er, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:09pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Llian, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:17pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matt, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:19pm

someone please send me this url!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:19pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joshua, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:32pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:33pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kins, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:36pm

Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
Who do we report this crime to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dug, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:39pm

looks awful
eww that site looks awful, i'd sue myself for using their code
[ link to this | view in thread ]
some guy, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:43pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:44pm

Re: Yet they host copyrighted files
Hrm... is this legal?
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/preteen_sex.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Turghen, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:44pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crackbot, 18 Oct 2007 @ 4:44pm

Suprised...
... the site hasn't been defaced yet. Anyone given a shout out to the alt.hackers.malicious USENET newsgroup yet?

*Wink* *Wink*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Axel, 18 Oct 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bodoor, 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:00pm

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:30pm

here's one opinion of them
http://pm.typepad.com/professional_marketing_bl/2006/09/marketers_laugh.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 18 Oct 2007 @ 5:32pm

That is,
the "super lawyer" aspect of their ego.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
konrad, 18 Oct 2007 @ 6:00pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jessica, 18 Oct 2007 @ 6:01pm

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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liothen, 18 Oct 2007 @ 6:48pm

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 18 Oct 2007 @ 7:26pm

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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 18 Oct 2007 @ 7:28pm

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.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 18 Oct 2007 @ 7:46pm

This is the Law Firm of Jackass, Douchebag & Fuck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
omg hax!, 18 Oct 2007 @ 8:06pm

Re: Bollocks
source code! oh no h@x! lol

html>
head>
base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/" />

title>User Agreement/Privacy Policy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jammer mchammer, 18 Oct 2007 @ 8:19pm

Re: Amusing
central virginia
is that where the hillbillies are. that would explain it...inbreeding
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James R., 18 Oct 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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 8:40pm

Re: AHHHH!
Actually, I think it does. Registering a copyright just makes it easier to prove.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Smedley, 18 Oct 2007 @ 8:51pm

Extortionists?
(link to article)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 9:34pm

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldgalaxy, 18 Oct 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexander Hamilton, 18 Oct 2007 @ 9:39pm

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/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Werner, 18 Oct 2007 @ 10:22pm

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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2007 @ 10:50pm

Just because you have a law degree ...
... doesn't mean you ain't bat-shit crazy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J, 19 Oct 2007 @ 12:21am

I iz in ur source code, P0WNing your ass!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff Jeffty Jeff (born on the 1st of Jeff, 19Jeftt, 19 Oct 2007 @ 12:25am

Don't want to use yer fskin code, it's crap anyway
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coldie, 19 Oct 2007 @ 2:52am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jakob Einar, 19 Oct 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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
adam, 19 Oct 2007 @ 3:47am

H4 H4
1'm 1|/| uR Src r34D1N6 Ur C0d3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joshua Rodman, 19 Oct 2007 @ 3:58am

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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam, 19 Oct 2007 @ 4:05am

Re: It's out of embarrassment
Seriously I was finishing my milk just before I got to 'or drink milk.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deathshadow, 19 Oct 2007 @ 4:34am

Re: It's out of embarrassment
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Amused, 19 Oct 2007 @ 5:36am

These people are REALLY dumb...
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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cubbs, 19 Oct 2007 @ 5:44am

Re: Re: embarrassed
"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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete Hobson, 19 Oct 2007 @ 6:40am

Is this illegal
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2007 @ 6:41am

All your base are belong to us
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2007 @ 7:04am

Re: Show them how you feel
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ss, 19 Oct 2007 @ 7:35am

What about archive.org?
What about archive.org?

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cybertriallawyer.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nik, 19 Oct 2007 @ 7:44am

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?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
APS, 19 Oct 2007 @ 8:12am

Really? Who wants the HTML?
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
epic, 19 Oct 2007 @ 8:29am

the internet law firm
doesn't have an email address or a clue
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mephron, 19 Oct 2007 @ 8:48am

Wow
I guess you can still get Delusional Idiocy In A Can in some places.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2007 @ 9:08am

Examples folder removed
The Examples folder has been removed: it looks like they do some maintenance after all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vinewsreader, 19 Oct 2007 @ 9:16am

Guess I can no longer use curl as my web browser...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Charabaruk (profile), 19 Oct 2007 @ 9:22am

Insert lolcats here
Im on ur website, viewin ur htmls...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wtf?, 19 Oct 2007 @ 9:38am

right.
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sgt. Guffy, 19 Oct 2007 @ 10:49am

Me Too
Now I am beginning to understand what "Corporate Fascism" means.
Heil Money!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
barr, 19 Oct 2007 @ 10:53am

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!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drew, 19 Oct 2007 @ 11:00am

Copy-Pase infringement
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."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quid-Pro-Quoe, 19 Oct 2007 @ 11:17am

Public Record
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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
joe, 19 Oct 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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrGonz--Internet Content Company CEO, 19 Oct 2007 @ 1:11pm

Re:
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Asigot, 19 Oct 2007 @ 2:06pm

html
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 !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D, 19 Oct 2007 @ 6:54pm

RE: html
They didn't change the user agreement I just looked at it. It's still the same stupidity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dl0711, 19 Oct 2007 @ 7:05pm

Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can't
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ineedof CreditHelp, 21 Oct 2007 @ 7:37pm

WTF??
"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?

:?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SillyValley, 21 Oct 2007 @ 9:06pm

Re: Re: Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You C
This whole thing has been one way to get a whole lot of hits. No one cares what geeky bloggers say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raam, 22 Oct 2007 @ 1:12am

Browsers rendering the site can be illegal
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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mojo, 23 Oct 2007 @ 2:23pm

Ah, those Legal Eagles, gotta love 'em.

Obviously, they should stop blasting their proprietary HTML over the innernuts, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
random8r, 24 Oct 2007 @ 4:39am

Linguistics
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 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!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thermal Ions, 2 Nov 2007 @ 9:45am

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
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris, 23 Nov 2007 @ 10:19am

here's there ow so precion source!!

Internet Lawyer, Trademark Infringement Lawyer, Domain Name Dispute Specialist!

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Joe Jr., 27 Nov 2007 @ 11:10pm

Re: It's out of embarrassment
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 28 Nov 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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hieronymous Maximus, 30 Nov 2007 @ 4:17am

Breathtaking stupidity ... but good for a laugh!
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!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hieronymous Maximus, 30 Nov 2007 @ 4:28am

On being a Pioneer ...
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fred. Virot, 7 Feb 2008 @ 9:11am

Re: It's out of embarrassment
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...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon Harvey, 11 Feb 2008 @ 1:29pm

This is absolutely hilarious
I wonder if they will sue my arse off for letting my browser "see" thier website... this has to be a joke right???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
marie, 11 Sep 2008 @ 9:02am

im hot
ohh yeah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
озеленение москва, 22 Sep 2008 @ 1:45pm

Oh yeah
Internet 2009. Good post about "This is absolutely hilarious"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jerry, 6 Aug 2009 @ 1:34am

Re: Stupid Lawyers
Link not working. Use this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC, 26 Sep 2010 @ 11:31pm

If you want to be shining, please choose our MAC, they are worth your attention. You will be the center of the crowd! MoreMAC cosmetics which have the best quality but the lowest price are waiting for you to pick up at our online store. We will never let you down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC Cosmetics Cheap, 19 Oct 2010 @ 9:23pm

You re really talented. Your blog looks so beautiful, I like it very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAC Cosmetics Cheap, 20 Oct 2010 @ 12:27am

You re really talented. Your blog looks so beautiful, I like it very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carla, 26 Oct 2010 @ 10:53am

no source view
Why doesn't someone sue Microsoft and get them to take that function out of their browser. Then pursue all other browser creators and get them to take that function out also.
[ link to this | view in thread ]