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.'"
If you happen to not be using a web browser and browse the website with telnet, making your own HTTP requests, an interesting case comes up:
You viewed the HTML before you are given notice that you are not authorized to view it. What happens in this case? Are you guilty of infringement?
Also, what exactly is the legal definition of 'viewing HTML'? Does it mean reading it with your own eyes, or does it include using a web browser to read it?
Really though, they are idiots. HTML isn't some magical closed source EXE, as much as they would like it to be.
...the line: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
It'd fall under either latches or unclean hands because their actions are contributing to your "violation"
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Well, here's why - they're infringing on someone else's copyright!
OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
So, the interesting legal question for the source code viewing clause would be: if you put something in a public area (eg: the internet), can you then claim someone viewing it is in violation of your implicit license agreement to view it? That is, if I post a sign outside my house, can I prohibit looking at the sign without wearing 3D glasses, for example? Someone with knowledge of how the normal law works want to educate me?
They totally understand this, and say as much. This is why they threaten the force of law if you look, because they know they can't actually physically stop you from looking. I believe they even know that their legal argument is false. Knowing that they can litigate you into financial oblivion right or wrong acts as a deterrent here, and I think this is their strategy. I can even tell you why they care. Because they are lawyers, and in their world everything they touch is valuable and the thought of someone using it without permission is highly offensive to them.
Or better yet. Can you lay claim to open source code they used to manage the site?
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/admin
I wonder what the people at Zope.org think about losing copyright to their work?
Notice that they have a link to a google analytics script near the bottom...since google analtyics is not their intellectual property, does that mean we are still allowed to view that one line?! />
/> <!-- For Yahoo authentication -->
/* dont follow link */ /* dont follow link */ // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action
<html>
<head>
<base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/"
<title>User Agreement/Privacy Policy</title>
<meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Dozier Internet Lawyers: Top rated internet lawyer, internet attorney, internet lawyers, online lawyer, online lawyers, internet attorneys, internet law firm, web lawyer.">
<meta name="KEYWORDS" content="keywords go in here">
<META name="y_key" content="1dfad02220b8c67b"
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="/imageswap_js"></script>
<csactions>
<csaction name="BF50B80B1" class="Open Popup Lite" type="onevent" val0="PopUp1" val1="680" val2="524" val3="true" val4="false" val5="false" val6="false" val7="false" val8="false" val9="false" val10="true" val11="" val12="" val13="#" val14="qtvr.html" val15="false" urlparams="14,15"></csaction>
</csactions>
<csscriptdict>
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
function CSClickReturn () {
var bAgent = window.navigator.userAgent;
var bAppName = window.navigator.appName;
if ((bAppName.indexOf("Explorer") >= 0) && (bAgent.indexOf("Mozilla/3") >= 0) && (bAgent.indexOf("Mac") >= 0))
return true;
else return false;
}
CSStopExecution=false;
function CSAction(array) {return CSAction2(CSAct, array);}
function CSAction2(fct, array) {
var result;
for (var i=0;i<array.length;i++) {
if(CSStopExecution) return false;
var aa = fct[array[i]];
if (aa == null) return false;
var ta = new Array;
for(var j=1;j<aa.length;j++) {
if((aa[j]!=null)&&(typeof(aa[j])=="object")&&(aa[j].length==2)){
if(aa[j][0]=="VAR"){ta[j]=CSStateArray[aa[j][1]];}
else{if(aa[j][0]=="ACT"){ta[j]=CSAction(new Array(new String(aa[j][1])));}
else ta[j]=aa[j];}
} else ta[j]=aa[j];
}
result=aa[0](ta);
}
return result;
}
CSAct = new Object;
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
Check out the admin panel. The error message is a zope.org message. Zope is licensed under their own OSS license. Now who's breaking copyright licenses? :)
Interesting, their site has been cached by Google: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:0T2TX0bv-usJ:www.cybertriallawyer.com/+cybertriallawyer.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
I'd bet this is to prevent anyone from spoofing their site.
As if someone couldn't mock it using other markup.
For "intarweb lawyers", they sure don't understand the internet.
Morons.
blah blah blah
What if this is just a poorly disguised study to see how many people will do something they are specifically told not to do. Even with a threat of legal action.
The results of this could be used in a lot of things from product advertising, public image control, and even motivating voters to come out for a cause. It this is a test to develop a theory or justify it, or just see what would happen to compare current tactics to the results.
Or maybe it is just a ploy to get free advertising. I mean it gets their name out, make it known, and what are the chances of someone who barely remembers their name, remembering why when they need a lawyer? Two years from now, they will probably be one of the most popular law firms on the net.
They claim they own all that code. Does that extend to <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="keywords go in here"> and <meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">? Have to ask...
Take a look at this line in the code: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
They "own all the code" MY ASS. Perhaps they retained the services of Mindpalette to design their website or their own developers used some of their code, but this statement indicated to me that they DO NOT own at least a good chunk of the JavaScript in this file. Have they done their "due diligence" concerning their IP? Are the (retarded) terms-of-service on this web page compatible with the terms of service agreed to by Mr. Baldwin? I am the author of some GPLed scripts myself, and if I discovered they were used on this site I would take issue and even consider legal action!
Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats.
I'd suggest that everyone click this link to an image that was commented out in the HTML source, as the hits to their server log will surely make them scratch their heads.
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/common/image3.jpg
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
This website's privacy statement claims they are not collecting personal information, although they use "geodetector.com" to collect each user's location. Err, ok.
Here's there embedded detector URL: http://geodetector.com/geo767
Ah yes, I've had contact from these yokels before. A while back a message board I administer got hit with a spam run, one of the spam posts advertised this company. One of the moderators cheerily replaced the payload link to Dozier's site with the text "Edited to remove references to legal company. Don't be so damn cheap, go and buy advertising." ...prompting of course a demand letter from the company claiming defamation, copyright infringement (the spam consisted partly of advertising copy direct from their site) as a start.
Mr. Dozier served his legal process by creating an account on our forum and sending a poorly-spelled diatribe using the "report to moderator" feature. In the end I nuked the spam (it was spam, after all), but not before solving the "legal problem" once and for all by banning his account and IP block from the server.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I'd be more concerned about them laying claim to meta tags identifying websites as being generated with Adobe GoLive, myself. If I were working for Adobe or even using GoLive, that is.
IANAL but i did take a Intro to business law course. In it I learned that browse-wrap agreements/contracts have been struck down time and time again and are not enforceable in a court of law.
Browse-wrap being "by viewing this post you agree to pay me 1000 dollars". Now, if there was a [I agree] button that you click on before entering the site... That could be a valid contract, unless the court decides its unconscionable.
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/FileLibrary
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement
HTML error (1/5): The DOCTYPE declaration is missing.
HTML error (3/63): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (9/49): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (14/13): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/286): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/297): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (15/297): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (16/14): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (16/14): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (17/16): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (88/17): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (88/17): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML error (89/16): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (94/17): The tag is unknown in this HTML standard.
HTML error (94/17): Can't find start tag for end tag . Maybe the tag was implicitly closed before.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "LEFTMARGIN" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "TOPMARGIN" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "MARGINWIDTH" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML warning (100/354): The attribute "MARGINHEIGHT" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
HTML error (168/19): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (175/19): Illegal character "/" in tag.
HTML error (222/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (224/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (226/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (228/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (230/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (232/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (234/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (236/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (238/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (240/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML error (242/17): The attribute "CASS" in tag
is not allowed.
HTML warning (267/75): The attribute "HEIGHT" is deprecated in the tag and should no longer be used. It is suggested CSS be used instead.
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Dozier_css
CSS Error (23/17): Invalid property value "bold".
CSS Error (336/7): Invalid property value "margin:".
CSS Error (336/7): Unknown identifier ":".
CSS Error (368/10): Invalid class selector.
GoLive is one of those programs that gives you just enough rope to hang yourself with, if you don't know what you're doing.
.... well, you'd get something like what you see above. Garbage. It has a tendency to do the usual WYSIWYG-editor things, like produce weird redundant nested tags, and generally make the code look horrible.
I happen to like it and think it's a fairly decent tool, but I can imagine in the hands of someone who was totally clueless, and only used it in the WYSIWYG mode
The idea is that it's very easy to switch from "Layout View" (WYSIWYG) to a nice color-coded HTML view, and from there to previewing it in your browser(s) of choice. I don't think the author in this case got the idea.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam OMG :D How morons like these are even allowed anywhere near bar...
There's a simpler solution to "the lawyer problem". (suing) Lawyers must share the losses as much as they share the winnings in a trial. It should work like this: A lawyer, when dealing with a customer to initiate a lawsuit, must decide on one of two payment methods. One is fixed income, with no sharing of the proceeds in case of winning. The other one is sharing the winnings as well as the losses if the suit is lost. That way nobody is going to initiate a suit if not quite certain they are going to win (as they have to pay for the lawyers a fixed fee). And lawyers are not going to accept lawsuits that have a low probability of being won, because if they lose they'll have to pay for the trial, the other party's lawyers and all other expenses out of their own pockets. Outcome: dissapearance of frivolous lawsuits, dissapearance of ambulance chasers, reduction of the burden on the justice and a happier living for all of us (other than for the lawyers, most of which would have to find decent jobs).