Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source

Posted by Zonk on from the thinking-this-is-a-publicity-stunt dept.

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.'"

9 of 601 comments (clear)

  1. Oops... Too Late by excelblue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. Better still: by TheAxeMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting
    W3C also says this:

    Line 3, Column 62: character data is not allowed here. ...ref="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement/" / You can't put user agreements in code! Maybe they were trying to get us to implicitly agree to them by hiding them in the code we're not allowed to view! Crafty bastards...
     
    Really though, they are idiots. HTML isn't some magical closed source EXE, as much as they would like it to be.
  3. Re:Content? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. They use an OSS CMS, nice. by Stormx2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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? :)

  5. Re:Now sue me. Pls ! by slacknhash · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  6. These lawyers ought to know better by WebCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:These lawyers ought to know better by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!

      It's very funny. The acts of paying for an internet connection and a computer, setting up a server and a domain name, and put these html pages unsecured upon that server is an act of publication. That interpretation is why Kazaa lady got nailed. The thing being published is not a browsing experience, it is a text file. I can use any tool I wish to view and interpret that text file, be it one I downloaded or one I wrote myself.

      Unless they have secured the pages against free access and collected an agreement to terms of use prior to transmitting this text file, they can not retroactively enforce them. This means they cannot enforce that I use any particular viewing medium for the text.

      However, what they have done is materially represented in the same site that they own the technology and the copyrights as a corporation, and also that the copyrights are some individuals property.

      If it isn't fraudulent on the basis that they use the obvious message to intimidate people via legal threats without basis in fact into not seeing the contradictory ownership message in the comments, it's most certainly too sloppy to be borne on the front page of a site run by Internet Lawyers.

      I knew lawyers were scum, but I figured it would be necessary for them to be at least somewhat smarter to get in the door. Apparently not.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  7. The firm is "Dozier Internet Law" by BillX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. Re:Now sue me. Pls ! by D4rkn1ght · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No wonder they want to keep it hidden. No doctype! I'd be ashamed too.

    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.