Slashdot Mirror
Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source
An anonymous reader writes "A law firm with all sorts of interesting views on copyright has decided to go the extra mile. As reported on Tech Dirt, they've decided that viewing the HTML source of their site is a violation of copyright. From the site's EULA: '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.'"
The name of the law firm in question is Dozier Internet Law. The link is to their web page. Enjoy!
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
Sorry to bring logic into this, but I am really curious if they understand that their "HTML Source" has to be transferred to the user machine in order to display their page?
They have placed HTML (an interpreted language) in public space to be viewed by people visiting their site.
If this were source code of some sort where users were supposed to be separated from the code then they may have ground to stand on, but the point is the exact text of their web page must be read and interpreted and is granted freely as such.
Hopefully this will bring the judge to the final ruling of: "duh!"
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram".
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
To quote their internet publication:
"Instead of telling you that you cannot use someone else's trademark in website tags or content, we can explain how you can use it legitimately. Instead of using a contract that might overstate your results, we can help you draft agreements that will minimize the ability of unreasonable clients to get their money back (unless you want to offer a money back guarantee). "
- source link
I am inclined to think these lawyers are scumbags. Welcome to America asswipes!
This EULA and website is by and for fanboys.
intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry
What hacking industry?
We make no representations, express or implied, concerning the functionality, security, or technical integrity of the button, and while the button is hosted by you and merely links to our site, we still provide the button solely on an "as is" basis.
The phrase "the button" is defined two paragraphs later, and poorly at that.
We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws.
Very very disingenuous. Copyright law protects against....COPYING! (not viewing; ever heard of this new technology called THE PRINTED WORD?). Also it is nearly universally refered to as copyright law, not "the copyright laws"
Dozier Internet Law, P.C. obviously has the capability to immediately react to such misappropriation,
The word obviously has no legal value, and is out of place in an EULA. The whole point of an EULA is to make an agreement explicit in every detail.
Of course, we do not sell any of the information collected on our website.
Again "Of course" has no place in an EULA
Businesses of the Internet, hear my cry: Do not use 15 year olds as your legal counsel!
Seagoon: Shut up Eccles!
Eccles: Shut up Eccles!
The only Intellectual Property law that would permit Dozier Internet law to keep their source secret is "Trade Secret" protection, and they explicitly remove themselves from this protection with this phrase: "We don't presently conduct e-commerce activities in the sense of accepting registrations or providing private access to a protected area of our website." Trade Secret protection explicitly requires access to such secrets to be limited, authorized, and secure. Dozier, you struck out.
Seagoon: Shut up Eccles!
Eccles: Shut up Eccles!
Maybe because they could never find out the results? There's no way for a server to distinguish whether a client is viewing the source or the rendered page.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Their robots.txt says something different:
/Backup /Form /acl_users /MailHost /test /test1
User-agent: *
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Is this a shopping list or what?
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
The audience must have doubled over in laughter at this. Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS". It's a clearly lawyer-bashing joke. Now, I'm all for defending the lawyers and sophisters - I hope to become one, soon enough - but I had to laugh when I realized that debrain's argument of a misquote was "supported" by a misquote of its own.
Neat, how that works.
It is really annoying when people try to disable right click, some idiot message pops up on the screen, which you have to cancel prior to gaining the right click menu. Under firefox of course Tools, Options, 'Content tab', Enable Java Script(should be on but do use http://noscript.net/), Advanced, Diasble or Replace context menus (make sure it is un-ticked). My browser, not your browser, my browser ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
they finally figured out this was open and shut it off
dumbasses....