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.'"

Comments

oblig.

[niteice]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

:o

Re:oblig.

[hpavc]

While we understand that most of our readers are familiar with latin/utf8 encoding, we do not permit you to view our page as such.

Cache-Control: no-render

[jasonwea]

Frankly, I'm surprised they permit browsers to render their precious markup.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[Inverted Intellect]

I went to the site just to look at the source. Really, if they insist on people not looking at it, there must be something good in there.

Turns out the coder is just ashamed of his HTML coding skills.

If that was all they wanted to hide, they could have just gone with the JPG format. It would be utterly useless, but at least no one would be able to look at their naughty parts.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[Shadowplay00]

Turns out the coder is just ashamed of his HTML coding skills. Hmm...

<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">

Yep. Probably don't want anyone to know their intern has a bootleg copy of GoLive.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[hobo sapiens]

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.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[McFadden]

Presumably, if you've been to their site, you've already infringed their precious copyright, since your browser had to make a 'copy' of their precious HTML simply to render the page. Viewing it is irrelevant - the crime has already been committed.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[maevius]

I went too just to look at the code. I looked at it for about 5 secs.

<p cass="bodyB">By using our website, you agree to the following:</p>

cass? Yes what about it?

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[anagama]

I tried to not look, but my default browser is curl. I'm screwed!

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[AlexBirch]

Hopefully cybertriallawyer.com files a take down notice; it's not good that someone is distributing their copyrighted information.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[markov_chain]

Where is that BSA phone number when you need it!

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[Hyperspite]

I bet it means that they are waiving some (probably most of IANAL) of their "all rights reserved" by freely transmitting their code.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[Kpt Kill]

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.

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[arminw]

....Now, if there was a [I agree] button that you click on......

My computer has a virus that detects and automatically clicks on a "agree" buttons

Re:Cache-Control: no-render

[alx5000]

When viewing source is outlawed, only outlaws will view source!

If you don't want anyone to view

[WebHostingGuy]

then don't publish it online.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[Samari711]

It'd fall under either latches or unclean hands because their actions are contributing to your "violation"

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I sue them for encouraging me into a life of crime?

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[radiumhahn]

I choose to use my first ammendment right.

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!

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[nine-times]

I'm just stating the obvious, but...

These guys seem to have a shockingly stupid understanding of the Internet and copyright, even if you ignore the fact that they're claiming to be expert lawyers on Internet-related issues. I had assumed that the submitter must have misinterpreted things, but directly from their user agreement:

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. 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.

(emphasis mine, and yeah, note the irony of me posting the text where they say all text on their site is copyright protected)

IANAL, but my understanding is that copyright is very much what is sounds like. "Copy right"-- the right to copy. The HTML code is necessarily copied to your computer in order to render the page. Therefore, the copying is done. Unless you can manage to argue that viewing the HTML code constitutes an additional "copy", then there isn't any possible chance that it could be a violation of copyright. It'd be like selling someone a book and then saying, "But you can't read this in bed, because we consider that a violation of copyright!" I'm sorry, but copyright doesn't allow you to determine how I use a legally-obtained copy.

What might allow them to determine how things are viewed or used is some sort of "User Agreement", which I guess is what they're trying to do. However, they're trying to make it binding simply by stating that, "By using our website, you agree to the following". However, calling it a "User Agreement" doesn't mean that anyone agreed to it. This agreement isn't even on the front page, and so it's entirely possible to browse through the site without ever seeing the agreement.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[cpt kangarooski]

IANAL, but my understanding is that copyright is very much what is sounds like. "Copy right"-- the right to copy. The HTML code is necessarily copied to your computer in order to render the page. Therefore, the copying is done. Unless you can manage to argue that viewing the HTML code constitutes an additional "copy", then there isn't any possible chance that it could be a violation of copyright.

Well, it could arguably constitute another copy, depending on how the computer works, whether you consider a computer to be a single medium or whether you treat it more granularly, with the hard drive being one medium, RAM being another, etc. But it may not matter. Normally when you view sites, and in the process, make copies, you're doing so pursuant to at least an implied license from the copyright holder who put the material on a public site intending that people view it. Here, it is possible (depending on the effectiveness of their express terms, etc.) that they're conditioning your making of that first copy on your not viewing the source. Whether their restrictive terms are effective, given how they're described (I'm thinking of Specht here) is probably of interest.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[nine-times]

Here, it is possible (depending on the effectiveness of their express terms, etc.) that they're conditioning your making of that first copy on your not viewing the source.

Can someone put licensing restrictions on copyrighted material that's offered publicly on the internet? What I mean is, how can they put conditions on your right to make a copy of a publicly available page being cached on your own computer for viewing? Further, how can they expect you to be bound by a license that you haven't agreed to?

Can you restrict the use of a copy with copyright? My understanding was that you couldn't. Owning a copy doesn't imply or require a license to use or view the copy, but a license is only required for copying copyrighted material. Further, I've read that there's been a legal precedent set with software that, since their use implies caching to RAM, that form of "copying" does not require a license to copy. Selling the first copy of software carries the implied right to install the software on your hard drive and cache it in RAM, and those copies don't require a license.

Is that not true? I've read most of these things in various places, but admittedly IANAL and you apparently are.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[budgenator]

This agreement isn't even on the front page, and so it's entirely possible to browse through the site without ever seeing the agreement. One would think that with all of their internet expertise, that you would have to click an agreement buttom and accept a cookie authenticating your exceptance before they'd even send their precious invalid HTML code with 65 errors on the front page!

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[cpt kangarooski]

What I mean is, how can they put conditions on your right to make a copy of a publicly available page being cached on your own computer for viewing?

If it wasn't licensed, you wouldn't be able to lawfully look at the web pages to begin with, due to the ever-annoying consequences of MAI v. Peak. This is why I don't like it when people concentrate on term length as if that was the only problem with copyright; among (many, many) other things, we'll also need better exceptions for incidental copies made by computers and probably a higher mens rea standard for infringement.

Alternatively, you could argue fair use for whatever you're doing outside the boundary of the routine implied license for materials authorizedly published on the net. It's not a difficult argument, really, so long as you're not doing anything noteworthy with the web page (e.g. changing the text and republishing it). But it's still sad that we've allowed things to get so bad that this would even be an issue.

Further, how can they expect you to be bound by a license that you haven't agreed to?

Agreement can be inferred from conduct in some cases. Consider the GPL: it's not as though you have to send a letter to the FSF or anyone indicating that you're accepting the terms of the license. Where the license deviates from the norm, however -- as here, with its unusual express terms -- then we probably get into Specht territory where those terms probably will be difficult to apply... though Specht partially depends on not knowing about those terms, so the publicity isn't really helping any of us.

Can you restrict the use of a copy with copyright? My understanding was that you couldn't.

You can't. That's the Bobbs-Merrill case from which the first sale doctrine originates. But there are ways to restrict the use of a copy by other means. The keys are what the use consists of, and access to the work. If the work is published, then you've lost control of access to it, and can only control certain limited uses by means of copyright (e.g. making a new copy). When the copyright dies, so does that portion of your control. If access to a specific copy in your control is needed, then you can condition that access on the acceptance of binding terms. This can be a part of a sale, or lending, etc. Whether doing this in every case in order to avoid the future possibility of a work being published and effectively being in the public domain is against public policy is an interesting issue, but until there's an actual conflict, it's moot.

Further, I've read that there's been a legal precedent set with software that, since their use implies caching to RAM, that form of "copying" does not require a license to copy.

You've got that backwards. Copying a copyrighted work into RAM, even for caching, is infringing, barring authorization, an applicable exception, etc. That's the MAI v. Peak case; it's worth a read, as is the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry case which is the logical outcome of that precedent.

Selling the first copy of software carries the implied right to install the software on your hard drive and cache it in RAM, and those copies don't require a license.

Is that not true?

That is also true. There is an exception at 17 USC 117 which lets the owners of a copy of a computer program make copies and adaptations freely in order to run it and to back it up. But it only applies to software, and only to people who own a copy (which naturally raises the issue of EULAs, and how they interact with 117). So it doesn't seem to be much use here. As I said, a broader exception for computers is needed. So are some other reforms.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[vought]

Can someone put licensing restrictions on copyrighted material that's offered publicly on the internet?

Yes. Think of it this way:

Can someone put licensing restrictions on copyrighted material that's offered publicly in a library?

Just because you can walk in and look at it free of charge doesn't mean that it is legal to copy the material.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[Chmarr]

"copyright" comes from "having rights to the copy", where copy here means the noun "written material" rather than the verb "to copy".

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[julesh]

These guys seem to have a shockingly stupid understanding of the Internet and copyright, even if you ignore the fact that they're claiming to be expert lawyers on Internet-related issues.

They appear to be experts in bullying bloggers into removing adverse comments from their sites and representing spyware authors. I don't think copyright's actually one of their core strengths...

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[nine-times]

Just because you can walk in and look at it free of charge doesn't mean that it is legal to copy the material.

But that's a restriction on copying the material. For example, if I buy a book, I am not permitted to copy the copyrighted contents of the book. However, I am permitted to sit on the book, throw it to the floor, read it while standing on my head, or burn the book. I do not need a license to do what I wish with the book itself-- I only need a license to copy/distribute the intellectual contents of the book (assuming the contents are protected by copyright).

I don't need a license to read the book in the library. The library doesn't need a license to let me read the book. There is no "license".

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[nine-times]

I'm pretty sure you have that backwards, actually. The whole point of "copyright" is not controlling who has access to copies, but who has the legal right to copy things. If I buy a book, I own the book. I have not licensed the right to possess the book, a license to read the book, or a license to lend the book. I don't need any such license, because I own the book. What I do not own are the intellectual contents of the book. In order to copy the contents of the book, I need a license.

And so copyright laws made a lot of sense a hundred years ago, but the implications are increasingly problematic. For us now, copying information is absolutely trivial we're constantly doing it unintentionally. When you access information on a computer, it's might be automatically cached in many different places and in many different ways, and each of those might constitute a copy.

It used to be that buying a music CD meant that you bought the physical CD and could do with it as you please so long as you didn't copy the music from the CD. Now, with digital distribution, you're somehow "buying" the music itself with no medium. The files are being cached on servers when they're delivered to your computer, they're being cached in RAM while they're playing, and they're being backed up and copied to iPods. Also people expect to have a continued right to listen to that music even if they lose their original copy, but none of that is guaranteed by any law (AFAIK, IANAL). "Buying" the song doesn't give you a right to have that song, it only gives you the one copy that you've bought. Everything else depends on the licensing agreement you have with the store you bought it from.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[AlHunt]

I choose to use my first ammendment right.

To quote their internet publication:

- source link

All of which contravenes their user agreement which requires their permission to link to their site.

Very nice.

Authorize my foot in your asses.

[Spazntwich]

I just went and stoled me some of that there intellectual property.

Smells good.

Re:Authorize my foot in your asses.

[Sofahero]

Anyway, who the fuck wants to view their html code. It sucks, the site looks like it was designed by a retard. But hey, this kind of retarded shit is only possible in the USA. Sometimes I read news and I just can't beleive what I am reading.

Re:Authorize my foot in your asses.

[heinousjay]

Only Americans can make stupid claims? You must be American too, then.

Invalid HTML

[alanw]

W3C says that the page isn't valid HTML - does that invalidate their claim?

Re:Invalid HTML

[TDyl]

Only 58 errors? I'd've thought there'd've been loads more.

Re:Invalid HTML

[davygrvy]

I fully agree. For anyone to infringe on their copywrite, their HTML should be legal HTML. What court could hold up any claim for stealing something that wasn't what it claimed to be? 57 errors past the first issue!

Re:Invalid HTML

[budgenator]

it's ironic but errors are better protected by copyright than clean code is, it can be argued that a correct HTML tag is too insignificant to be copyrighted, but the erroneous tag is much more likely to be unique. Games like "Trivial Pursuit" and Karoke CDs has errors on purpose simply for copyright protection.

Re:Invalid HTML

[Midnight Thunder]

W3C says [w3.org] that the page isn't valid HTML - does that invalidate their claim?

The best way to respect that their copyright is not infringed, would be to prevent people visiting their site. Entities with heavy handy copyright expectations shouldn't expect to do business.

Re:Invalid HTML

[syrinx]

Games like "Trivial Pursuit" and Karoke CDs has errors on purpose simply for copyright protection.

The answer is "the Moops"...

they seem a bit stressed

[phrostie]

i think they just need to get laid REALLY bad.

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[Joe Snipe]

why would a bad lay help?

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[rich_r]

Like documentation, any lay is better than no lay...

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[raehl]

/* The following function takes a single integer input, x, and returns an integer output, x + 4 */

int addFour ( int x ) {

    return (x - 4);

}

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[Kompressor]

Hey hey hey....


Some of us have standards around here ;-)

Kompressor

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[Esion Modnar]

i think they just need to get laid REALLY bad.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing. Only I was thinking they need to go get FUCKED.

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[chis101]

Well said, sir.

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[budgenator]

/* The following function takes a single integer input, x, and returns an integer output, x + 4 */
 
int addFour ( int x )
{
    return (x - 4294967292);
}

this should actually work on some machines and not others.

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[ari_j]

Hello, miss! I'm on an STD scavenger hunt, and I just can't seem to find the clap. Do you have the clap?

Re:they seem a bit stressed

[RealGrouchy]

Yeah, but try getting lawyers to put anything in layman's terms.

- RG>

Well then

[katterjohn]

From now on I'm going to make all my Ruby and shell scripts proprietary and closed source!

Re:Well then

[eosp]

So you're going to rewrite them in Perl?

Content?

[the eric conspiracy]

So the content is part of the HTML source for the site. How are you supposed to read the notice without reading at least part of the HTML source?

Re:Content?

[Typoboy]

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?

Re:Content?

[alan_dershowitz]

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.

Re:Content?

[Jarjarthejedi]

Probably. They also understand that the RIAA claims a similar thing, that you're not allowed to listen to (or view) the music (HTML) outside of what their approved software lets you hear (see on the browser without viewing the source).

If one group can claim it then so can another right? I mean, if we're not allowed to get past the encryption used by the RIAA then couldn't they just claim that it's very, very weak encryption in that it's hidden from view by default and that by hitting "View page source" (ff) you're decrypting it without their permission and so violating DCMA.

Sure it's ridiculous, but in a very specific way that other groups are legally allowed to claim makes sense. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Re:Content?

[orkysoft]

Now you're hacking their webserver too!

Re:Content?

[Dunbal]

Just because you can read my post doesn't mean I give you permission to see the words!!! :)

Re:Content?

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Content?

[SpaceLifeForm]

They better get a SCOSource license then.

Re:Content?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You're not! Please pretend you never read that!

And certainly stop distributing that info immediately!

Re:Content?

[tftp]

But what if I use telnet to port 80 and then manually render the page on a big sheet of paper?

Re:Content?

[kimvette]

Next up: book publishers will limit where you can read their books. I can see it now:

"Permission is granted to read this book only while sitting outdoors in the shade of a poplar tree. Reading this book in a coffee shop, in bed, on your sofa, in direct sun, or under the shade of any species of tree besides poplar is expressly forbidden. Also, while it is technically possible to use magnifying glasses and reading lamps to aid the reading of small printed text by those who are visually impaired, the use of magnification devices is also expressly forbidden therefore it is unlawful for you to do so."

Re:Content?

[Helios1182]

You would have entirely too much free time.

Re:Content?

[StikyPad]

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.

Re:Content?

[j79zlr]

Well I think they have some infringing content here. Unless of course they have 2Live Crew & Brittany's permission ;)

Re:Content?

[Typoboy]

But /usr/bin/telnet is my default web browser and I can't turn off the HTML source, what do I do?

Useless

[nsebban]

It's not like they have any means to know you actually viewed their source.

Re:Useless

[nuzak]

Sure they do, paste it in. I think just for their legal reasons, posting wget or lynx -source output would be interpreted the same as well.

I was going to prove it by posting their HTML source here, but posting any significant chunk of it, just to show what I think of their precious copyright, triggered the lameness filter. How apropos.

For those who are too lazy to do some digging...

[AceCaseOR]

The name of the law firm in question is Dozier Internet Law. The link is to their web page. Enjoy!

So no visiting either?

[john_is_war]

The website is displayed via HTML... so technically I'm not allowed to view the web page itself...

Thinking about it further, the sites EULA is printed using HTML, so I technically shouldn't be allowed to see it, as per the EULA, and therefore am not obligated by it.

Oops... Too Late

[excelblue]

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?

Re:Oops... Too Late

[Sicily1918]

You can view the HTML output, but not the code itself, as their disclaimer states. Of course, that's like saying you can read my book, but not the words.

Re:Oops... Too Late

[alan_dershowitz]

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? I don't think it's terribly ambiguous, you have raw HTML and you have rendered HTML. Rendered HTML may not look consistent or even right, but it's not going to expose markup. Here are the problems with that as I see it:

1. you can't hide it, it's trivial to view it.
2. you don't own HTML or browser technology, so you are completely dependent on developers who may need to see your code to render it properly. Someone somewhere needs to actually look at HTML to make an HTML renderer, so your position is shortsighted.
3. why do you even care, the chance your code contains something worth protecting is almost nil. You web designers probably just cribbed code from webmaster.com anyway.
4. you are making yourselves look like idiots and are goading exactly the people who can embarrass you the most.

Alternatively

[Mateo_LeFou]

Would it be that hard to rename "copyright" to "viewright" before starting up crap like this?

Is viewing the DOM allowed

[rminsk]

If I use something like Firebug to inspect the DOM of the website am I in violation of the copyright?

I own this!

[nexxuz]

Every word that I type I own! If you are reading this then you are in violation! Please send all your money to my off-shore bank account now!

Suggested technical fix

[davidwr]

Add a new HTML tag:
<analcopyright>

The &;ltanalcopyright< indicates HTML code that the copyright author or maintainer does not wish anyone to see. Web browsers should not process code enclosed by this tag in any way. They should not present it to the viewer. They should not process it for display. They should treat it as if it does not exist.

Re:Suggested technical fix

[Feyr]

a simpler fix, that doesn't involve breaking any standards /etc/init.d/apache stop

Re:Suggested technical fix

[bigstrat2003]

Bah. What about the Apache servers running on Windows? What about non-Apache servers? While your fix doesn't break any standards, it isn't inclusive enough! ;)

Re:Suggested technical fix

[rs79]

&;ltanalcopyright

I see you've read "HTML for lawyers".

I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[TheGratefulNet]

% cd cybermorans
% while 1
while? wget -rm -np http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/
while? sleep 10
while? rm -rf *
while? end

that'll keep 'em entertained. oh, and me, too.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[complete loony]

If you're going to fill their logs, the least you could do is add inappropriate referrer urls.

"Why are we getting hits from this .... tub ... girl. You'd better check out this site so we can send a cease and desist letter."

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[UnCivil Liberty]

Perhaps the only time it's even been appropriate to link to Goatse in the ten year history of Slashdot. :D

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[gringer]

How about something like this:

while true; do wget -O /dev/null --referer=http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/ http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/; done


That way, you're not actually looking at the code (assuming /dev/null points to the usual place), but it would still come up on their logs as the same.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[colourmyeyes]

This reminds me of the story a little while back about the woman who said no one could download any part of her site (or something to that effect). The same wget advice was offered then, too. Anyone remember that story? I realize this is incredibly vague, but maybe somebody else remembers.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[Gabest]

Only terrorists would use command line, everyone knows that!

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[tignom]

% cd cybermorans
-bash: cd: home: No such file or directory
% while 1
while? wget -rm -np http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/
while? sleep 10
while? rm -rf *
while? end

There goes my home directory. Good thing I wasn't at /.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[TheGratefulNet]

No such file or directory

I forgot to include the warranty statement:

"this code comes with no warranty. if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces"

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[animusCollards]

These litigious douche bags are harming our blessed Internet and we should stop at nothing to end their reign of terror... but tub girl? Cruel.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[Oriumpor]

too many enter keys, and I want to keep my hard disk a while longer :P

while true; do wget -O/dev/null -q -rm -np http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/ ; done

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[TheGratefulNet]

it seems that if you want your code reviewed faster, just post it to slash and you'll get more codereview than you had planned on.

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[Planx_Constant]

You should change the url to http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/I-am-looking-at-your-source-code/. According to the their User Agreement, "We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files..." Like 404 logs?

Re:I'm 'wget' - come arrest me!

[Dr_Barnowl]

www.cybertriallawyer.com - pr0n style...

This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[CaptainPatent]

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!"

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[nuzak]

Look, sometimes you just don't need to justify the reasoning (how you need to transfer the HTML to read it), or explain the technical details (the intricacies of caching, transfer, futility of preventing view source, etc), and just run with your basic instinct: These are just bullying sociopaths who need to be clubbed right out of the gene pool.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[ekimd]

Which Judge? How is anyone going to prove you read the HTML source?

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[KiahZero]

It already does, although not labeled as such. It's one of the canons of statutory interpretations: legislatures don't write statutes to produce absurd results. A court might hold that clearly, the Congress could not have meant to allow this sort of thing with the Copyright Act, so it's invalid.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[DustyShadow]

The law does have that "duh" clause. It's called an implied license. Their publication of the site on the internet is their implied license for you to view the site and source. They obviously don't realize that viewing the site requires you to have a copy of the source. From other news I've read about this law firm, I've gathered that don't have a very good grasp on copyright law. I'm currently a law student who is about halfway through his copyright course and I feel like I know 200 times more about copyright than these douche bags. I've read a few quotes from the Dozier guy and he kept quoting English law about copyright. I think he forgot that he lives in the US. It might be time for him to retire and check into a psych ward.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[Chosen Reject]

Is it possible for you to bring up a court case claiming that you violated the copyright's of others? I mean, could I file a copyright violation case against myself with Dozier as the plaintiff and then argue that they can't do what they're doing, then win, and then we can end this nonsense right now?

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[The_Wilschon]

I don't know. You'd better ask a lawyer. I know some good ones! Their website is at http://cybertriallawyer.com/.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[MysteriousPreacher]

That company are damned good. They must be, since they even have an exclamation at the end of the page title!

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[upside]

HTML is not a programming language, interpreted or otherwise. It's a formatting language not unlike a typesetting language.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[binaryartist]

Similar to what I think. They are sending the HTML to my machine. What I do with it shouldnt be their concern. I may chose to use a HTML renderer with it or may just prefer to look at HTML. That is my business. If they didnt want people to look at their HTML, they shouldnt send it to them in the first place.

Re:This is why law needs a "duh" clause

[booch]

He never said that it was a programming language. He said that it is an interpreted language -- which it is.

What if...

[keraneuology]

I were to use something like Greasemonkey to ROT13 (or even ROT1) the sourcecode as it came down? They only say I can't look at their source (by using the 'view source' function of a browser)...

In other words...

[kaan]

All our source are belong to us.

Standard browser

[roemcke]

What is a standard browser? They say you may only render it using a standard browser. I am browsing using telnet. Is telnet standard?

Re:Standard browser

[GPL Apostate]

I'm browsing it using wget. And my .wgetrc file has the lines 'robots=off' and 'recursive=on' in it.

Hmmm. They have some really big mp3 files on their site. Hmmm, it's taking quite a while to read the site....

Permit my ass

[Cracked Pottery]

How do you plan to stop me, or even discover it if I do it? I'm so scared. Please don't sic any of your shysters on me. You have me terrified that I might even be so much as accused of viewing your HTML source. Maybe you can make me pay you some money to not sue me, even though I couldn't care less about your chickenshit HTML.

Guilty? No.

[XanC]

They obviously believe that anything they say is the law when it comes to content they produce. That's complete baloney. They can say whatever they want; it doesn't make it so.

Apropo legal responce

[st0rmshad0w]

Can some one find the British legal responce that essentially equates to telling the other party to "Fuck off" in so many words?

Why on earth there is no American equivalent is beyond me.

Re:Apropo legal responce

[polymath69]

Can some one find the British legal responce that essentially equates to telling the other party to "Fuck off" in so many words?

"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram".

Re:Apropo legal responce

[TDyl]

I think it may be "go Grisham yerself old chap" or perchance "if only Steve Irwin was still alive..."

Re:Apropo legal responce

[paulmac84]

I think you're looking for Arkell v Pressdram

You're in violation

[Anonymous Coward]

...They also state that you shouldn't link to their site without permission.

Re:You're in violation

[pagaboy]

Sounds like a great idea to me:

1. Post a notice saying it's bad to link to your website
2. Wait for the reaction, as gullibles add a load of links to your website just to spite you
3. Sip cider as your Googlerank and exposure quietly increase
4. [optional] ???
5. Profit!

Re:You're in violation

[meringuoid]

They also state that you shouldn't link to their site without permission.

I'd be interested to hear on what grounds.

Re:You're in violation

[totally bogus dude]

We have a similar clause in the copyright page on our site. Pretty much everyone has argued about its stupidity, lack of enforceability, and the fact that it runs counter to what we want (of course we want people to link to our website!).

The reason given by the people that insisted it be there is that they're scared some people we'd rather not be associated with will link to us, and that someone somewhere will somehow construe the link to our site as an endorsement of the linking site by us. For example, a porn site might make a link to us saying we're a good state for making porn in (we're in the tourism industry, so our site is about our state and why you should visit it) and someone will be offended by that.

Obviously it's a load of nonsense and is embarrassing to most of us, but sometimes you just can't convince people to use basic common sense. (I guess that applies doubly to lawyers?)

Generated by a Tool for Tools

[decipher_saint]

Check it out:
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement

Generated by:

<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">

So can they even lay claim to something generated by a tool?

Re:Generated by a Tool for Tools

[ritalinvillain]

Oh, yeah. These guys own Adobe, rendering of the name Adobe, and anything made by Adobe. Your PDF are belong to them!

Re:Generated by a Tool for Tools

[pdangel]

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?

Re:Generated by a Tool for Tools

[sgartner]

Generated by:

<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">

So can they even lay claim to something generated by a tool? From the statements on the web site any reasonable person can conclude that the entire web site was generated by a "tool" (regardless of what software he/she used to build the web site)?

How can they tell that I read their html...

[Howard Canonymouse]

I guess that is something you learn in law school. bill

Re:How can they tell that I read their html...

[damicatz]

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

                        = 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;iarray.length;i++) {
                if(CSStopExecution) return false;
                var aa = fct[array[i]];
                if (aa == null) return false;
                var ta = new Array;
                for(var j=1;jaa.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; // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
if (typeof MPStoreOpenWin2 == "undefined") MPStoreOpenWin2 = new Array();
function MPOpenPopupLite(action) {
        var posX = 0;
        var posY = 0;
        if (action[4] == true) {
                posX = Math.round((screen.availWidth/2)-(action[2]/2));
                posY = Math.round((screen.availHeight/2)-(action[3]/2));
                } else {
                posX = action[12];
                posY = action[13];
                }
        if (action[16] == true) {
                posX = 0;
                posY = 0;
                action[2] = screen.availWidth;
                action[3] = screen.availHeight;
                }
        for (i=5; i12; i++) {
                action[i] == true ? action[i] = "yes" : action[i] = "no";
                }
        var windowOptions = "";
        windowOptions += "width=" +

---

Oops, looks like I accidentally pasted some stuff from my browser window and my backspace key isn't working.

Better still:

[TheAxeMaster]

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.

Re:Better still:

[UbuntuDupe]

Really though, they are idiots. HTML isn't some magical closed source EXE, as much as they would like it to be.

When I first started learning how the Web works, I was genuinely surprised to learn that you could always view the "source code" of a website (excepting e.g. flash, etc.), and so could always copy the look of a site, and yet Microsoft still "played along".

Re:Better still:

[CountBadger]

Only eventually when they realised the popularity of HTML. http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/spring96/0113.html

Re:Better still:

[Edy52285]

This is an impossible claim they make. Think about what a website really is, is it what the browsers render? Well different browsers can render the same code in different ways, so no, its not the rendering. Is it the code? Yes, the HTML of a site IS the site. From the website owners perspective there is no way of knowing what software or device the user is accessing the code with, for all they know, its being pulled up as just text, which would be the HTML. Since in order for the owners of the site to show you the site, they must send you the raw HTML so that the browser can do its thing (like render structure and styles and ask the server for any images the code points to). Since thats all they are doing, it makes no sense that they would try to force users to not look at it. What im trying to say is that, in order for you to see the licensing thing, you need to see the site, in order for you to see the site, they ahve to send you the raw code first, which is then at the whim of whatever software your using to render it. Was there not recently something about EULA's not being valid if the user has to purchase the item before seeing it? The same would apply here. You cant agree to the EULA before seeing it, and you cant see it before,.. well seeing it. At what point would this stop, would you then start suing indivuduals who use the wrong browser, because they are not correctly rendering MY website? Or what about Userscripts and Greasemonkey, oh seems like those people would get sueing for altering the code without permission. This makes no sense.. you cant make proprietary something built off of an inherantly open platform It boils down to making a sign that says "The content of this sign is copyrighted, by reading this you are violating copyright laws"

Re:Better still:

[ShatteredArm]

I just wrote a browser that renders all '\n' characters as physical line breaks.

Am I covered?

Re:Better still:

[Pharmboy]

so could always copy the look of a site, and yet Microsoft still "played along".

But who the hell would want a site that looks like microsofts?

Besides, they sell the t00lz to mad hax0rZ so they can steal images and html and make copies of Adobe GoLive pages using FrontPage. They are just as bad as the l0pht and cDc and 2600 d00dz!

(showing my age now...)

Re:Better still:

[iandog]

This kind of brings up the question, What about HTML parsers that read the source on my behalf?

Re:Better still:

[Chris Mattern]

Not by choice. You may have forgotten, but Microsoft's original position on the web when it first start to pick up steam was that it wasn't going to be anything big--you were going to want to network with Microsoft products. But Microsoft has always been smart enough to recognize when something is too big even for them to fight and to step out of the way of the steamroller.

Chris Mattern

Re:Better still:

[sqlrob]

I was genuinely surprised to learn that you could always view the "source code" of a website (excepting e.g. flash, etc.), and so could always copy the look of a site, and yet Microsoft still "played along".

Hence the push for silverlight

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[bigstrat2003]

Thanks for the link. I just went and infringed on some intellectual property rights... who knew it could be so damn fun?

Bah!

[Greyfox]

That's what they get for not hiring an administrator for their web server who knows what they're doing. If they don't want people looking at their HTML source, they should just change the permissions to disallow it: "chmod -r 000 $WEBSITE_ROOT_DIR" This will also save them a ton of bandwidth! Anyone have a link to their site so we can critique their page layout and other IP?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[nmb3000]

The name of the law firm in question is Dozier Internet Law. The link is to their web page. Enjoy!

"we also are intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry"

"We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files"

"We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission"

Well, you're screwed now. They're hackers, they have your IP, and you linked to their site.

"you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way"

Of course, I'm in trouble too because the every act of viewing their page required me to download a copy of it. I suppose they could put their website on a CD, then mail it to everybody who calls in and asks to visit their website.

Morons.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Golden Section]

Dimwits on zealous inalienable electronic rights

Can copyright....

[machinelou]

Can copyright really be used to limit the conditions under which people can read/view materials that have already been distributed?

Re:Can copyright....

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Can copyright really be used to limit the conditions under which people can read/view materials that have already been distributed?

IANAL, but no. Copyright allows me to make you sign a contract that states you'll only say nice things about my book as a precondition for getting a copy, but not to give you a copy and then make that claim. I can sell you a CD with the condition that you not use it on vile Windows computers, but not ex post facto.

Re:Can copyright....

[st0rmshad0w]

IANAL, but I doubt copyright is appropriate here, but in MD and VA UCITA might make such after-the-fact licenses enforcable.

connect the dots

[andreyvul]

Copyrighting HTML code, creating the bubble-sort of C&D letters...
they have questionable lawyers.

In Soviet Russia

[ekimd]

all HTML source is copyright the government.

Headers

[konohitowa]

The funny thing is that they don't actually have any licensing agreement comments/headers of any sort embedded in said "code".

If you actually read the source you find...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...the line: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

Re:If you actually read the source you find...

[Pop69]

I clicked on the Admin link at the bottom of their page, it asked me if I wanted to log onto Zope.

Can a law firm claim copyright on code that is already copyright, or indeed, can anyone ?

the hits keep on coming.

[Roskolnikov]

idiots, I can put in html that by reading this you acknowledge I am the ruler supreme, putting foot to butt is a little different.

lynx works, I wonder at what point do they consider it a violation, my application has to view the source, isn't that a legal proxy for me?

what about web proxy's?

I suspect that putting such a policy on their site has increased traffic a thousand fold......

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Skater]

Whoa, you have just violated their terms of use!

We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission...

From their website user agreement. There are other gems in there, too - read and enjoy!

Oh no, now I've violated their terms of use! Nooooooooo!

That`s me screwed then !

[Salsaman]

I don`t believe in using so-called "browsers", I download the html source of every site I visit, and then render it in my head.

I guess I won`t be visiting this law firm`s website any time soon.

RFC 1149 fetch needed

[RichMan]

This just cries out for someone to implement a page fetch of this using RFC 1149.
Then to archive the transmit and receive buffers in a book.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html
--
Frame Format

      The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in
      hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
      The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
      A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The
      bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and
      paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A
      typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed.

      Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the
      datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable
      form.
--

violation of gpl?

[H310iSe]

Not sure but they seem to build/maintain their site with the OSS Zope so while the text might be thier copywrite the formatting for the text was generated by Zope and I suspect there are some rules about how you can or can not copywrite that product?

I can't believe I'm even responding to this sillyness but we do need to keep the ill-informed slapped around I suppose.

Lawyers that dont understand copyright?

[hcmtnbiker]

I find it funny that they are a law group that doesn't understand copyright. The fact that their server replies to my HTTP GET means that they have given me the write to view what i receive. I am always allowed to view ANY piece of copyrighted work, I am just not allowed to "copy" it and distribute it as my own.

Re:Lawyers that dont understand copyright?

[nuzak]

Oh, they probably understand it well enough. It just doesn't stop them from making spurious legal-sounding threats as a bullying strategy. Basically, Dozier Internet Law stands as a shining example of why lawyers have such a bad reputation. The bar should be ashamed to even have these people as members (or likely, it's one guy renting a cheap office by the month) .

Yeah, I know about Dozier's linking policy. I don't even have anything funny to add about it, these people bring down the house by themselves.

advertising

[belmolis]

It seems to me that these people are doing a terrific job of negative advertising. their activities tell me two things: (a) they don't know much about copyright law; (b) they're a bunch of jerks. If I were considering employing them, both of these features would warn me off them. I'm tempted to think that they have a mole in their office who is out to undermine them.

Re:advertising

[bockelboy]

They're not advertising to you, sane person who knows the law.

They're advertising to people who have more money than brains, and also want to sue someone for looking at them wrong. They're trying to reach out to all the idiots who want a lawyer who will pursue a $20 million lawsuit for three years with no chance of survival and charge them $1 million while doing it.

Basically they say, "Hey - we will pursue any stupid claim you want. Look at our website! It's full of dumb ones."

Re:advertising

[mrjb]

(c) They're not as familiar with the IT industry as they think. I'd NEVER hire them for my IT cases.

Interesting legal question

[sigmabody]

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?

Re:Interesting legal question

[julesh]

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?

Erm. No. Don't be silly.

Which is, of course, what somebody should have told these idiots.

Next website I do...

[Perseid]

"By viewing this HTML source you agree to send $100 to me. If you do no consent, too bad, you're already viewing the source now. And don't think I can't tell - *I* know JavaScript."

Re:Next website I do...

[laejoh]

Pfff, sue me, if you can find my ip in your log files!

Ps: I can help you to find my ip in your log files for only a modest amount! - *I* know perl!

I smell a slashdotting coming on

[mpapet]

Except that appears to be forbidden too.

"If you are conducting a "click attack" and are not a legitimate, bona fide prospective client, your access to any page of our website is unauthorized."

Click attack indeed. Uh oh... I found another one.

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.

It belongs to http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/ Is that enough to qualify as fair use? Maybe you should go on over and find out.

Re:I smell a slashdotting coming on

[webmaster404]

I think this is the only time that most /.ers will RTFA, just to view the source

Law Firm

[kawabago]

They obviously don't have enough to do.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[necro2607]

Oh man, be sure to check out that video right on the front page. This site is pure gold! I want to archive the whole thing just to show people so they can join in the hilarity!

I actually laughed out loud when the guy said "pioneer of internet law". Like, after these absolutely insane claims and statements, who's going to accept that he's apparently a pioneer of internet law? What is this, some new form of Alternate Reality Game made to promote an upcoming video game or other entertainment product?? The site is so utterly outrageous, I wouldn't be even remotely surprised...

AAAAnnnd further more...

[scooviduvoctagon]

... the arrangements of the pixels used to present the text of all content of this site are considered alike to source code. As such, we do not permit you to view the pixels that comprise the text of this message, being further components of our intellectual property.

just html?

[pak9rabid]

Is the javascript still up for grabs?

Re:just html?

[Hyperspite]

What if you just regarded the javascript as invalid HTML (especially any script tags that contain ? At least some of it is in the same file.

Re:just html?

[Hyperspite]

ahem *especially script tags that cointain

Isn't viewing the site just interpreting source?

[brainchill]

Apparently someone forgot to tell these dimwits that viewing a web page AT ALL was just a software interpretation of a view of the code.

Followon questions

[bdemchak]

I wonder how well they thought this through ...

Do they stop Google from crawling their site?? Google interprets the HTML differently than a browser would.

Will they stop Google or archive.org from caching it?? ... or re-rendering it within a frame??

Do they place other requirements on the browser ... such as exactly how the browser interprets the HTML for the sake of rendering??

Considering that there are virtually ubiquitous substitutes for HTML browsers that *do* enforce source protection, can they be deemed to have constructively waived their claims by publishing in an inherently unsecure medium like HTML?? (I'm thinking that they could have published in secured PDF or Flash.)

The mind boggles ... one wonders where they're going with this!?

Re:Followon questions

[geekoid]

clearly, they think that the rendered page is sent to the browser.

Someone need to tell them that there server sends the html, the person browser does the rendering in a manner it chooses. Generally rendering it to in accordance of some standards.
That's the only thing that makes sense to me. I will never use them for any 'Cyber' issue, because clearly they don't understand the technology they represent.

Re:Followon questions

[bdemchak]

Right. I suspect that if some tech-savvy judge were to hear a case based on this, he'd throw them to the moon. But there are plenty of tech-non-savvy judges out there. One never can predict how the court will rule. As for their premise in putting their page out in HTML, if they were serious about protecting it, they would have published in PDF or Flash. At least then they'd have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to say that decoding it would constitute a violation. But no. They're purposely throwing down the gauntlet over the HTML issue. How on earth would they expect to calculate damages??

Copyright 2007 by bdemchak. You have the right to read this provided you don't disagree with it. :)

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[st0rmshad0w]

Dozier Internet Law, P.C. does not direct our website to children under thirteen (13) years of age.

Anyone with a kid want to test this? They seem to think they are running some psychic webserver.

So

[Tim C]

What if I created a web browser (or an extension fore Firefox, etc) that displayed the HTML source rather than interpreting it and rendering the marked-up content?

What if I telnet to port 80 on their webserver and issue the HTTP commands myself?

Mind you, years ago I worked on a site for a customer, and happened to skim through their Ts and Cs page. One of the things they explicitly disallowed was caching of content, including by proxy servers.

Re:So

[MysteriousPreacher]

You would quite rightfully be sent to prison for 55 years. I'd like to see you telnet to port 80 while Bubba is trying to send packets up your rear port.

Yours sincerely.

A concerned reader.

I do not permit them to...

[Boomer_Zz]

hear my speaking if I am near them. If they do, it's on!

Re:I do not permit them to...

[Dunbal]

hear my speaking if I am near them. If they do, it's on!

Speaking? Who says you're allowed to speak? I have already patented that!!! My lawyers will be in touch with you shortly.

Their HTML code revealed

[Experiment 626]

Ha ha ha, not only can I view their precious HTML code, I'm posting it to Slashdot for all the world to see!

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="2;url=http://goatse.cx/">
<title>Attorneys at Law</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FF66FF">
<!-- If you can read this, we're going to sue you! --/>
<h1>The Law Offices of Moron, Idiot, and Dumbass</h1>
<img src="OMG_Ponies.gif"/>
<blink>Need an incompetent ambulance chaser with no understanding of the law to
represent you? You've come to the right place!</blink>
</body>
</html>

Re:Their HTML code revealed

[ninjapiratemonkey]

Ha ha ha, not only can I view their precious HTML code, I'm posting it to Slashdot for all the world to see!

Attorneys at Law The Law Offices of Moron, Idiot, and Dumbass Need an incompetent ambulance chaser with no understanding of the law to represent you? You've come to the right place!

as far as I can tell... your html is much better than that of their site. yours is readable, while theirs is a nightmare of tables embedded within tables of tables... but their images do have alts...

Re:Their HTML code revealed

[MyMistake]

Oh God! Thanks a lot... now I've read it and they're lawerys are coming for me.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer!

This post is copyrighted

[Maxo-Texas]

So you may not read it.

Sure I know it is PUBLISHED to the web, and if you ask for it, it will be SERVED to you. And if it were printed out and on a wall, the idea that I could forbid you from looking at something PUBLICLY visible would be clearly ludicrous, this is different... because it is on the INTERNET!

Re:This post is copyrighted

[Lunzo]

How is it even copyright infringement to view the source? As pretty much everyone has pointed out by visiting their site they send the source to you. I think they could make a case for infringement if you copied their code and used it on your website. But just reading it shouldn't violate copyright.

As an example, I'm reading a book I borrowed from the local library. I'm 99% sure it's a copyrighted work. This is like saying you can only look at the cover or the page layout, actually reading the text isn't allowed. Ridiculous!

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

Re:Guilty? No.

[spun]

They obviously believe that anything they say is the law when it comes to content they produce. That's complete baloney. They can say whatever they want; it doesn't make it so. No, I don't think they believe that for a minute. I think they think we'll believe it though.

Unfortunately yes

[XanC]

If it's encrypted, thanks to the DMCA. The DMCA is the first law in the entire history of copyright that restricts access, not just copying. That's what makes it evil.

Re:Unfortunately yes

[Damarkus13]

How, exactly, would they get encrypted HTML to render on a "standard browser?"

oh and look!

[olele]

Cookies! they're giving them away, so are they mine now?

Re:oh and look!

[serialdogma]

They're called biscuits, Penfold.

Re:oh and look!

[IdeaMan]

Actually I think they're tossing them, or was it that we are? I'm confused....

Mod me up and get me sued...

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

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?!
<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" /> <!-- For Yahoo authentication -->
<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; /* 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<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; // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action

ahhh but...

[JustNiz]

Ahhh but the RIAA have managed to set the legal precedent that merely "making available" of copyrighted material on the internet makes you guilty of distributing it.

Therefore the law company themselves are guilty of inciting their own breach of copyright.

Re:ahhh but...

[deniable]

How about this for an on-topic link?

how I did it

[theMerovingian]

I learned html years ago from viewing the source on ESR's homepage.* The way he has it set up made the entire process seem obvious to me. I have no skills in programming real languages, but I imagine his more substantive code is equally good.

*ESR's site is not the best place to learn graphic design from, however.

Re:how I did it

[julesh]

I have no skills in programming real languages, but I imagine [Eric S Raymond's] more substantive code is equally good.

Speaking as somebody who once modified some of his code for an unusual purpose, no, not really. He's a hacker in the true sense of the word.

Apostrophe much?

[XanC]

You know the key you use to make this symbol: "? Try pushing that one without holding down Shift.

Re:Apostrophe much?

[Salsaman]

I have an excuse, I'm using a foreign keyboard, and what's marked on some keys isn't always what appears.
But just for you I'm taking your advice.

What part of....

[Nonillion]

Hey DOZIER, what part of FUCK OFF are you having difficulty understanding? Your EULA is a laughing stock and totally unenforceable.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Gordonjcp]

"We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files"

Put some copyright material *that you own the copyright to* in your Browser-Agent string. Sue them for breach of copyright.

Soliciting spammers?

[ralphart]

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/mailers

It contains this thinly veiled solicitation to defend spammers:
"As a mailer, you have a tough road to navigate. While proper and legal commercial e-mail is simply a business tool used by most of the top online and offline businesses today, there still is the perception that all such mail is "spam". Of course, nothing is further from the truth."

Ouch!

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Oktober Sunset]

Dozier, as in 'more dozy' right?

Some of their code revealed!!!!one1

[noidentity]

Here is some of their super secret codes revealed:

<html>

<p>

And the most valuable, apparently:

<font>

(posted anonymous for obvious reasons)

Simple solution!

[radiumhahn]

Add a request header:

Legally-Binding: By responding to this request you waive all copyrights past, present, and future for the response sent.

Re:Simple solution!

[sgartner]

Add a request header:

Legally-Binding: By responding to this request you waive all copyrights past, present, and future for the response sent.

Quick, someone submit a feature request for Firefox!

So who found this?

[Chrutil]

Someone actually sat down and read the user agreement to some lawyers website?!

Swiss claim copyright to use of HTML

[WillAffleckUW]

And if you aren't one of the original users of a certain particle accelerator, you owe a whole heck of a lot of money.

Good thing I was on ARPA*NET when it was founded.

Now sue me. Pls !

[Anonymous Coward]

<html>
<head>
<base href="http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/" />

<title>Internet Lawyer, Trademark Infringement Lawyer, Domain Name Dispute Specialist!</title>
<meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Dozier Internet Law and Dozier Intenet Law, PC are top rated Internet Lawyer Specialists representing business interests on the web as advocate and legal counsel.>

<meta name="KEYWORDS" content="dozier internet law, dozier internet law pc, dozier lawyer, dozier internet, internet lawyer, internet lawyers, interent attorney, internet attorneys, john dozier, john w dozier, john w dozier jr">
<META name="y_key" content="1dfad02220b8c67b" /> <!-- For Yahoo authentication -->
<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; /* 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<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;
// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004
if (typeof MPStoreOpenWin2 == "undefined") MPStoreOpenWin2 = new Array();
function MPOpenPopupLite(action) {
var posX = 0;
var posY = 0;
if (action[4] == true) {
posX = Math.round((screen.availWidth/2)-(action[2]/2));
posY = Math.round((screen.availHeight/2)-(action[3]/2));
} else {
posX = action[12];
posY = action[13];
}
if (action[16] == true) {

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[WwWonka]

main( ) {
    extrn a, b, c;
    putchar(a); putchar(b); putchar(c); putchar('!*n');
}
a 'hell';
b 'o';
c 'lawsuit';

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[kennygraham]

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

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Martin Blank]

Not only no doctype, but... I'm not even a web developer, and the HTML hurts to look at. I don't think FrontPage 98 was that bad.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Sneeka2]

Apparently GoLive was though.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[JoeCommodore]

How dare you, my eyes are now burning!!!

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[slacknhash]

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...

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Demiansmark]

Great, now we're all going to be sued

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Rhodin]

Er, I don't think I could hire a law firm that doesn't check its spelling. In the header info, they've spelled 'internet' incorrectly. Twice. ;)

<meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Dozier Internet Law and Dozier Intenet Law, PC

internet lawyer, internet lawyers, interent attorney

I mean, outside of the fact that I wouldn't hire them for philosophical reasons. As an artist, I've relied many times on emulation as a means of learning technique. If people want to poke through my HTML (as messy as it can be) as a means of learning what to do and not do in web design, I say give'r. :)
- ev
_____________________
http://evanbutler.com/

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[tacocat]

So they have a copyright on the word META? Or the use of META in HTML? Or what?

This stuff is getting out of hand. Imagine what would happen if lawyers were limited to a maximum total income of $100,000 per annum. The only ones left would be lawyers who actually enjoyed what they did enough to not be an asshole. They might actually be better at practicing law too.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[aproposofwhat]

$100K for being able to read?

Oh, that I was so talented!

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[pan_piper]

Never mind the legal advice - here's some technical advice: don't use their code because it's riddled with errors. "

[sic]"????

Sourced from http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[slacknhash]

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.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[koweja]

Important Stuff

• ...
• Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated...

Indeed. It just never mentioned what direction to mod you.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[durnurd]

Crap, now they're gonna sue me too!

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[budgenator]

no shit This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)!Result: Failed validation, 65 Errors Markup Validation Service
it's a testement to our browsers that the page even renders! Oh I know now, it's like the phone book can't be copyrighted because its just facts, but the wrong numbers are not facts so they are copyrighted, it's ok to copy the correct numbers but not the wrong numbers and its not ok to copy anything from that firm's site vbecause it just wrong!

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[D4rkn1ght]

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.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Monsuco]

Imagine what would happen if lawyers were limited to a maximum total income of $100,000 per annum.

A maximum wage is always a bad idea. Imagine you hire a lawyer and he says "well, I don't care if I win this case or not, as I already reached my wage limit". We're better off reforming lawsuits than setting up a maximum wage.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[M. Baranczak]

A maximum wage is always a bad idea. Now that's a bold statement. A maximum wage has never actually been tried, has it?

Imagine you hire a lawyer and he says "well, I don't care if I win this case or not, as I already reached my wage limit". If that lawyer reached his wage limit, he'd just take the rest of the year off and you wouldn't be able to hire him in the first place.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Herby Sagues]

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).

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[commodoresloat]

Actually I think all they claim to own in that tag is the phrase "keywords go in here".

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[ImdatS]

Now that's a bold statement. A maximum wage has never actually been tried, has it? In fact, it has been. There are two big examples (sorry, a bit off-topic).

1) In Germany, there is an upper limit for practicing physicians for each treatment. They collect so called "points". And there is an upper limit per point. The points are directly related to a treatment type. So, once a physician has (lets say) treated a head-ache the same way 10 times per month, he has to switch to another therapy, otherwise the additional treatments will just cost him and not generate any income.

This is probably one of the most stupid inventions in human history, but it kind-o "works". Physicians complain like hell, patients don't understand it, government complaints - only the central social insurance physicians association ("Kassenärztliche Vereinigungen") are happy because they control more-or-less every payment.

2) Bonus for middle managers and sales people (here in Germany). I will never, ever understand why bonus payments should have a cap. I mean, the idea is that the people generate more revenues and results (managers) or sell more (sales). Why limit their bonus and thus also limit their willingness to invest more time into the task?

I have heard all arguments *for* cap on bonus, but none of them convince me so far, as they are mainly about "... well in such a case, people would retort to 'half-legal' methods to raise their bonus..." - no, they *wouldn't*, because either (a) they already do it and a cap doesn't change much or (b) they won't because the good managers/sales people want to perform.

Also, there are excellent methods to avoid (a) short-term thinking (something like bonus-banks, etc) and (b) "half-legal" activity. What happens now, in fact, is that sales people (once they reach their bonus-limit during a period) push sales to the next period instead of selling more and more and managers do the same and become mediocre people.

Anyway, sorry for the off-topic thing, but yes, there are lots of jobs where there is cap on wages.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Lord Apathy]

Personally, I think when lawyers make to many mistakes, bring to many false cases, or do generally stupid shit like this they should face disbarrment. Point of being a lawyer is you are supposed to know the fucking law. Shit like this shows these fuckers clearly don't know the fucking law.

When a doctor fucks to many times he loses his license. If I get tanked and get behind the wheel not only do I lose my licese I go to jail. What is the difference between doctors and lawyers in the license area?

Lawyers that practice law and are clearly wrong should not be allowed to practice law. If this was true asshats like this and Jack Thompson would be nothing more than a foot note in legal history.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[rayk_sland]

apparently they own their typos, too...

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[DrSkwid]

> A maximum wage has never actually been tried, has it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[Z00L00K]

And when running the first page through the W3C HTML Validator you will get 65 errors and the title "This page is not Valid (no Doctype found)!"...

THAT's EMBARRASSING - And expecting that anybody really would want to look at their HTML code... Only reason may be that they wrote the pages themselves and don't want to stand out as morons when it comes to writing HTML code.

On the other hand - it can also be a marketing trick.

And if the person that reads their HTML is located outside the US what leverage do they have?

Mostly seems to be about "how stupid can one get?"

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[jonadab]

> Outcome: dissapearance of frivolous lawsuits

Wow. Your optimism knows no bounds.

I'm not saying I dislike the idea of making the plaintiff's lawyers share in the losses if the suit is unsuccessful, but I hardly think frivolous lawsuits would disappear.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[tacocat]

The tolerance level in the Bar Association is far higher than the tolerance level of the rest of society. After all, you can't get disbarred for making clients sleep with you even though it's reported from time to time.

Re:Now sue me. Pls !

[UbuntuDupe]

Wow, that's the first creative AND economically justifiable use I've ever seen suggested for wage controls. A gold star to you Sir. (or feline or whatever)

Of course, you'd probably have to also reduce requirements to being one so as to ensure you'd have enough.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[ritalinvillain]

please tell me that 'we also are intimately familiar' is meant to construe 'we have carnal knowledge'.

Have fun with those log files.

[kwabbles]

I'm sure there are some records in there now.

this is the funniest...

[rastoboy29]

...thing i've heard all day.  oh yeah, i'm gonna run right out and hire these nimrods to represent me.

Sue me!

[kwabbles]

I just read the intellectual property in your post.

To bad this law firm doesn't know the law

[HannethCom]

"We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission." How many times has this and deep linking been tossed out of the courts? Who would want to go with a law firm that doesn't know the law? Heck, I'm Canadian and I seem to know US law better than them.

They use an OSS CMS, nice.

[Stormx2]

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? :)

Re:They use an OSS CMS, nice.

[deniable]

The warez site, er FileLibrary is better.

Re:They use an OSS CMS, nice.

[mikee805]

Its probably http://plone.org./ Its an OSS CMS based on Zope.

Smells like...

[rainmayun]

a publicity stunt.

Seriously, it's hard for me to assume stupidity on that level as the default explanation. Makes more sense to me that they're trying to raise their profile... by any means necessary.

This just in from Microsoft...

[kwabbles]

Ballmer announces that IE8 will have the View Page Source capabilities removed from the browser so as to accommodate others' I.P..

Microsoft has also submitted the idea for a patent.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Rangataua]

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

Actually, I kind of like the idea...

[Panaqqa]

that these clowns don't seem to understand copyright. Because they will be draining the financial resources of other clowns who don't understand copyright to launch lawsuits that are ultimately doomed to failure. Maybe not initially, but certainly at the appeals level. And building all kinds of nice precedents and case law while they are at it, more the better. Let's hope that by the time a battle comes along that IS important, that thanks to ambulance chasers like these there is a significant body of case law against the litigant.

BTW, for everyone who has mentioned the Googlebot, their Terms and Conditions specifically permit search engine spiders.

spam, spam, spam

[jefu]

Yup, looks like a big chunk of their business is in helping spammers say they're not spamming. Lawyers and spammers - find one and you find the other - and the neighborhood always smells bad.

I sent them a message

[Bryansix]

I said they were morons and that they could not stop anybody form viewing their source code. Do you think they'll sue?

Copyright, not Viewright -- right?

[wray]

Anyway, what makes them think that a copyright (or intellectual property) has anything to do with peoples' ability or right to see it.

Archived, in case it gets slashdotted!

[dayid]

http://www.nixwire.com/pub/ I'm not even charging them for archiving!

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[vimh42]

I made sure and copyrighted my IP address before I visited their website. They owe me monies!

Those guys had to become programmers

[suv4x4]

They use the law as if you can program the world, just if you say so:

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. We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results. We do not authorize you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting "click attacks", which is the practice of clicking on one of our online ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs.

Hehe, well, guess what guys: the email harvesting and indexing bots won't read your threats.

Their robots.txt says:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /Backup
Disallow: /Form
Disallow: /acl_users
Disallow: /MailHost
Disallow: /test
Disallow: /test1

Thanks for letting us know where *not* to go. I'm sure the Chinese spam bots will also *not* go there and *not* see what you have there.

Curiously they should've just put this: Disallow: /

Re:Those guys had to become programmers

[CodeBuster]

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.

Yeah, I am sure that the Russian and Chinese hackers and botnet operators give a flying f**k about what some American lawyers "permit" them to do. Are these lawyers living in the real world? Its open warfare out there on the public Internet and foreign hackers, operating outside the United States, are among the most prominent players and they don't concern themselves with laws.

Re:Those guys had to become programmers

[batlock666]

Acl_users? MailHost? Do they, do they, ... Yes! They use Zope!

Re:Those guys had to become programmers

[stuntpope]

Not only do they use Zope, but they left the Example Applications in the acl_users folder, and its publicly accessible, and people have uploaded mp3s and other media to it. So this law firm could now be liable to the RIAA for illegal distribution of copyrighted material. The ironing is delicious!

Interesting PDF file on their site

[kwabbles]

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/articles/JohnDozierJanFeb.pdf

"Beware of Online Legal Advice"

Oh - bite me.

[Lunarsight]

I did not read the user agreement, seeing that it did not make you read this agreement prior to visiting the page. I just copied the entire source code for the main page, and am going to use it as the lyrics for a rock opera that I am writing.

I'm kind of hoping they send me a cease and desist letter in the mail, since I can use that for the second verse in my rock opera.

Now - I just need to learn how to sing.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[InvalidError]

Our firm has handled 252 legal matters in the past two years Three more cases to go and they'll gain a temporary geek credebility booster.

Testimonials

[hansamurai]

My favorite part of the site is the testimonial quote on one of their pages:

"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. Whoops, think I just infringed some copyright.

Oh my...

[mindwanderer]

Oh noes! I clicked on the Copyright Infringement Warning button and I saw html codez! I am so getting sued...

Idiots.

[Hamilton Lovecraft]

If you don't want me to read your HTML source, I recommend you don't send it over the intertubes to my web browser when I ask for it.

Reading != Infringement

[AeroIllini]

These people clearly have a very dim understanding of what copyright is and how it works. I'm not sure I'd want them representing me in a court case involving nuances of copyright if they don't even understand the fundamentals.

Copyright is about publishing, not viewing. Infringement is defined as someone other than the copyright holder publishing the copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder. That's all. Restrictions on viewing can only come from not publishing. Once it's published, game over. The purchaser of the published copy has every right to view the contents. Incidentally, this is why the RIAA goes after only uploaders, not downloaders.

By placing their copyrighted work on a public webserver, they have effectively published it to the web, and by not placing it behind a registration or payment wall, they have also effectively offered it for sale to the public in published form for $0. They are essentially handing out free pamphlets on a street corner, which they then forbid you from reading. There are no protection schemes (i.e., DRM) in use, so the DMCA circumvention provision doesn't even apply (it wouldn't apply anyway to mere viewing, only to infringement, which means publishing).

However, were I to copy their source code wholesale and use it for my site (including the design and/or layout), then they have a legal leg to stand on, and can sue me for infringement. Until that happens, any court in the country would give them a hearty "fuck you" if they tried to sue someone on the grounds that the source code was read in a browser.

Also, I found this gem on their site:

"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. Apparently the little companies don't understand how to handle technology litigation, either. To call them shady would be an insult to used car dealers everywhere.

Re:Well then ...

[BradyB]

I think I'll copyright my HTTP requests too. Their web server better not look at them! Don't worry they won't ;)

WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF TRASH IS LEGAL

[L053R]

How is this substantially different than when the Montana Federal Court Ruled: "When a person intentionally abandons his property, that person's expectation of privacy with regard to that property is abandoned as well,"

Is posting = abandoning?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[kryten_nl]

It looks like they allow mirroring and caching:
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/robots.txt

User-agent: *
Disallow: /Backup
Disallow: /Form
Disallow: /acl_users
Disallow: /MailHost
Disallow: /test
Disallow: /test1

Lawyers ...

[sgunhouse]

Gee, I thought it was called copyright. You mean, copyright prevents me from reading a book or watching a movie? Of course not, it prevents me from copying it.

Re:Lawyers ...

[MysteriousPreacher]

It depends on the country, but copyright law covers far more than distribution; it also covers your consumption of the material.

The following are illegal under Irish copyright law.

Bringing a stereo to play in a public area where it can be heard by people outside my domestic or family circle.
Playing my iPod loud enough for people to hear the music I walk down the street
Watching a DVD on a plane (or any other public place) where strangers may be able to see the screen

Obviously the circumstances would be taken in to account by the court, but the law is there.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if their site got hacked?

[KWTm]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone pwned their site and replaced little things? Maybe something that they probably wouldn't notice but prospective customers would read carefully and realize how full of it this firm is? Something like

"we also are intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry. In fact, our website gets updated by the hacking industry from time to time."

"We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files. Soon we will figure out how to actually look at those log files to see what information is contained there."

"We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission. In fact, you are not allowed to look at our web site without our permission. Hey, are you looking at this site right now? Stop that! Fine, our lawyers will be contacting you shortly."

Re:Wouldn't it be a hoot if their site got hacked?

[deniable]

Ummm, hello RIAA, look what these tools are making available.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Tsagadai]

Dozier, as in American mispelling Dossier?

Remember

[geekoid]

they are Lawyers, and in many countries, Spam is specifically defined. As such, some people will need to be defended, or advised on what spam is, in a legal sense.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[skeftomai]

Isn't it illegal now for companies to record IP addresses of their visitors?

some telltale phrases, eula by and for fanboys.

[clsours]

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!

Re:some telltale phrases, eula by and for fanboys.

[julesh]

More comments on their site:

"We use cookies on the website only to facilitate internal navigation and provide a more user friendly website. This is the only reason Dozier Internet Law, P.C. uses cookies on our website."

So how come one of them has a 1 year expiration date and includes my original referer details. Do they need this for internal navigation, or perhaps do they use it for visitor tracking?

"The name "Dozier Internet Law, P.C.", and similar derivatives of it, constitute our trademark and servicemark, and should not be used in any manner without our permission."

Uh, right. Come sue me, Dozier Internet Law PC, if you think you're hard enough.

"Dozier Internet Law, P.C. obviously has the capability to immediately react to ["misappropriation" of their trademarks in advertising by competitors], oftentimes resulting in very significant financial exposure for the infringer. You are not authorized to use our name, or any derivative of it."

Right. I can find no trace of any litigation issued by this company, and such cases are usually controversial and are generally publicly discussed. Therefore I can only conclude that by "oftentimes" they mean "in zero cases out of a total of zero".

"We do not authorize you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting "click attacks", which is the practice of clicking on one of our online ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs. All of our online advertising is intended solely and exclusively for bona fide prospective clients. By clicking on an online ad, you are immediately directed to our website. If you are conducting a "click attack" and are not a legitimate, bona fide prospective client, your access to any page of our website is unauthorized."

So you're not allowed to click their banners unless you intend to hire them. Wow.

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time this company has come to public attention. See here.

Re:some telltale phrases, eula by and for fanboys.

[hotdiggitydawg]

Do not use 15 year olds as your legal counsel! Funny, that tactic seems to work for most Ask Slashdot submissions...

Steal Their Analytics Code!

[WebmasterNeal]

Somebody steal their analytics code and bork up their stats:

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-294347-1";
urchinTracker();
</script>

Solve this with your own license agreement

[Nkwe]

I keep the following file on all of my machines. It solves the problem with silly EULAs and other agreements. (Well maybe it doesn't solve it, but it at least makes an interesting discussion and may put me on par.)

EOELA.TXT:

Execution and Operational Environment License Agreement (EOELA)

By allowing your software to execute, operate, or be interpreted in this computing environment, you agree to be bound by this license agreement.

You agree that your software operates as a legal proxy for you and binds you to this agreement.

This license agreement supersedes any and all other legal agreements past, present, or future specifically including but not limited to End User License Agreements (EULAs) contained in your software distribution, printed on the package your software came in, or made available on you web site or any other communications medium. In the case of a conflict between agreements, this agreement will take precedence.

You agree that this computing environment may use your software and data for any purpose whatsoever with absolutely no restrictions or compensation of any kind.

You also agree that this computing environment may make your software and data available to any and all other computing environments and people at any time with no restrictions or compensation.

If you do not agree with this legal agreement your software must act as a proxy for you and indicate disagreement by not executing or allowing itself to be interpreted.

This agreement may be changed at any time by the owner of this computing environment. A current copy of this agreement is posted in the standard temporary file location for this operational environment. You agree that your software will periodically check for changes to this agreement.

I figure if someone or some company can claim that my computer or browser can act as a legal proxy for me (and create a contract without me actually signing anything), then my computer can create a legal proxy for the company as well (without them actually signing anything.) It has to work both ways right?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[GPL Apostate]

I suppose they could put their website on a CD, then mail it to everybody who calls in and asks to visit their website.

No. First their lawyer pays you a visit and you sign the NDA. Then they mail you the CD.

Why not disbar such an idiot?

[LA Thierry]

Similarly to the efforts of some overturning obvious patents, can't we do something to get this lawyer disbarred or at the very least publicly humiliated?

Re:dynamic html

[fyngyrz]

Shakespeare's character has a quote from the correct page of the instruction manual for this kind of lawyerly behavior: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Another thing: Trade Secret.

[clsours]

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.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

No, copyright could easily work, provided that there are copyrightable elements on the page which they hold the rights to. You're right though that merely asking people not to view the source isn't going to fly as a trade secret.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[clsours]

No, copyright could easily work
copyright could be used to prevent copying and distribution of the source, but viewing the source would not be protected by copyright.
Copyright, Service Mark, Trademark, and Patent IP rights are secured by the US government. Securing your IP rights involves registering the content of your IP with the USPTO. The only copyright they cold claim on viewing the source of their code (even at the loosest reading of copyright law) would be any pages that are not in the first 10 or last 10 pages of code for each copyrighted work.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

copyright could be used to prevent copying and distribution of the source, but viewing the source would not be protected by copyright.

Not directly, but it is possible to put conditions on the making of copies of the pages, and all people browsing the net necessarily make copies in order to do so. The issue would be whether they had managed to accomplish this and that they were even trying.

Copyright, Service Mark, Trademark, and Patent IP rights are secured by the US government. Securing your IP rights involves registering the content of your IP with the USPTO. The only copyright they cold claim on viewing the source of their code (even at the loosest reading of copyright law) would be any pages that are not in the first 10 or last 10 pages of code for each copyrighted work.

That's not really accurate.

There are federal and state copyrights; there are federal and state marks; there are federal patents (AFAIK no states offer state patents, though they could to the degree it wouldn't be preempted; probably not interesting to them, though). Registering copyrights involves the US Copyright Office, not the PTO, and the scope of protection really has nothing whatsoever to do with the amazingly stupid deposit rules they've set up of late.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[dpilot]

It's that tiny copy of the page source that's imaged on the back of your eyeball, on the retina.

That's the illegal copy. Sound doesn't make any sort of copy inside the ears, otherwise no doubt the RIAA would be serving subpoenas on peoples' cochlea as "illegal devices".

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[clsours]

Not directly, but it is possible to put conditions on the making of copies of the pages, and all people browsing the net necessarily make copies in order to do so. The issue would be whether they had managed to accomplish this and that they were even trying.
If they were trying to do this the wouldn't the EULA read something more like:
As the hold of copyright on this "website" {insert legalese explaining "website"}, we authorize "web users" {insert legalese explaining "web users"} to use common web browsers to interpret the "source" {insert yada yada}, however we do not authorize "web users" to make or view a temporary copy of said "source" for any purpose.
What really gets me is the fact that the ?agreement? in question isn't even up to professional writing standards, much less the standards of a legal document.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

I said it was possible. I didn't say that this particular example (which I haven't taken a close look at anyway) would qualify. Indeed, based on the descriptions here, I think it wouldn't manage to accomplish whatever it is that is intended.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[julesh]

Not directly, but it is possible to put conditions on the making of copies of the pages, and all people browsing the net necessarily make copies in order to do so. The issue would be whether they had managed to accomplish this and that they were even trying.

Yes, but as I understand the matter, there is a _direct exception_ in US copyright law that allows making temporary copies for the purpose of viewing material.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[jbolden]

I don't think that would still be legal. To have an EULA you need to own the software, in this case the browser. They are the ones freely transmitting the HTML source, you have to take action to convert the HTML source into a browsable image. That is they aren't prohibiting an act they are requiring an act as terms of use of their webserver. And this assumes they even own the server, otherwise they aren't even providing software as a service. Finally there is no transaction.

I don't see any possible basis for an EULA.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, but as I understand the matter, there is a _direct exception_ in US copyright law that allows making temporary copies for the purpose of viewing material.

There is not. The best you could get would be fair use, and whether or not a specific use is fair or not will always depend on the circumstances involved.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

First, you're off base about the bases for a EULA. You don't need much for them to be possible.

Second, I don't think that that's what they're actually doing. Whenever anyone puts anything up on the web for the public to look at, they are, by their conduct, granting an implied license to the public to make such copies as are necessary for those pages to be looked at. Otherwise it would be illegal to look at web pages which had been put up lawfully, which would be an absurd outcome. Note that it is copyright infringement on the part of the person browsing the web to even so much as look at an infringing web page, since that person is making more copies of it. There has been at least one case to this effect, possibly more.

Here, rather than use that normal implied license, they are trying to use an express license which still seems to grant users that right, but specifically denies them the right to look at the source of those copies. Since this license is the only source of your right to make the copies into RAM, cache, etc. that you have to make in order to view the page at all, you still need to accept. The issue is whether solely their express license is in effect, or if they've bollixed it up and the implied license could still be used as an alternative.

And of course, you could always argue fair use if you did something not permitted under either license, but that's always a bit of a gamble, since any use could be a fair use or not, depending on the specific circumstances.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[pfleming]

I said it was possible. I didn't say that this particular example (which I haven't taken a close look at anyway) would qualify.
Worried about the infringement suit? ;)

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[julesh]

Hmm. Yes, the clause I was thinking of is restricted to computer programs:

USC17 Section 117 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) [...]

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[clsours]

Isnt there a principle of law that says that if you do not exercise your rights (or enforce statutes or somesuch) every time you become aware of an infringement, you lose those rights (or the statute becomes un-enforceable)? Im not trying to be contrary here, Im just trying to figure out how these guys can claim to be lawyers.

Re:Another thing: Trade Secret.

[cpt kangarooski]

With regard to copyright, there is a statute of limitations, and I suppose an equitable argument could be made, e.g. laches, given the right circumstances. But that really only works on specific infringements, and wouldn't affect the copyright as against anyone else.

These lawyers ought to know better

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Romancer]

Will someone please mod this up?

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[damn_registrars]

Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats.
Are you sure you can find one decent lawyer when you only have 10 total? I think you need a much larger collection of lawyers before you'll accomplish that...

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[silverkniveshotmail.]

Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats. Are you sure you can find one decent lawyer when you only have 10 total? I think you need a much larger collection of lawyers before you'll accomplish that...

While I'm not defending this kind of crap, it's pretty easy to like a lawyer who is on your side. I was just part of a successful class-action lawsuit against my employer for a number of really really stupid practices including rounding hours and restricting breaks. And it's hard for me to hate our lawyer.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Nazlfrag]

It just appears that way because it's logarithmic. 100 lawyers will net you 2 good ones, 1000 lawyers 3 good ones and so forth.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Hooya]

> Geez...get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other nine will be total asshats.

almost. get any 10 lawyers together, one will be a real decent person, the other *eight* will be total asshats, the last one will be a total ass. as demonstrated by the article.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[ShieldW0lf]

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.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[damn_registrars]

It just appears that way because it's logarithmic. 100 lawyers will net you 2 good ones, 1000 lawyers 3 good ones and so forth.

I think that comment probably deserves to be modded both 'funny' and 'insightful'.

Though I have to wonder how that math holds up if groups are brought together. For example, if a group of 10 has one good one, and you bring together 3 groups of ten, you should come out with less than 2 good ones (log 30 ~ 1.4).

What, therefore, happened to the 1.6 additional good lawyers that we had before we brought the groups together?

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[DMUTPeregrine]

High concentrations of lawyers cause destroy goodness. A bit like higher and higher concentrations of people decrease the average IQ of the mob.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[WarwickRyan]

Quick, someone send a DMCA copyright takedown for their breach of the GPL! ;-)

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[m2943]

What, therefore, happened to the 1.6 additional good lawyers that we had before we brought the groups together?

Good question. The answer is that they neutralize each other.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Crayon Kid]

Stockholm syndrome.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[wrook]

I seem to remember seeing a set of powerpoint slides about 10-15 years ago which argued that 60% of everyone is incompetent at their job. The slides urged people to reflect on that - 60% of doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc are incompetent at their job.

I also seem to remember that these slides were purported to have come from a talk from Colin Powell... Can anyone find me a link to the original slides?

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[McGiraf]

LOL

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[TheRaven64]

I think the selection algorithm the grandparent was using was 'get Ray Beckman and n other lawyers.' With this method, you are guaranteed to have one decent person per (n+1) lawyers, for any value of n.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Elyscape]

Well, as noted by Terry Pratchett, the IQ of a mob is equal to the IQ of its lowest member, divided by the number of members in the mob.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[omfglearntoplay]

Why isn't there a law for a fine every time a lawyer puts a lie/threat in writing for something like this. It should be called "Don't know shit, spreading stupidity, and intimidating the meek and/or innocent FEE".

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[dargon]

The word is ass-tunnel, not asshat ;)

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[HeyMe]

"One useless man is called a disgrace, two are called a law firm and three or more become a congress!"
-
John Adams from the musical "1776"

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Jon_S]

I think the guy who put together that powerpoint was incompetent.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Convector]

See, this is exactly why they don't want you looking at the code.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[AlHunt]

> While I'm not defending this kind of crap, it's pretty easy to like a lawyer who is on your side. I was just part of a successful class-action
> lawsuit ... it's hard for me to hate our lawyer.

No worries. I'll hate them for you.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[forlornhope]

I've always had a problem with people saying that the more people you have the lower the average IQ. Unless your mob starts at MIT and heads for down town Boston (LOL), I doubt this is true. What actually happens is that people disociate themselves with the actions of mobs and are able to justify things worse and worse things. Same thing happens in corporations and countries that commit unspeakable crimes. The individual says to themselves that they aren't responsible because its the mob/corporation/state doing it.

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[jonadab]

> Are you sure you can find one decent lawyer when you only have 10 total? I think
> you need a much larger collection of lawyers before you'll accomplish that...

Yeah, it's kind of like Abraham, pleading with God not to destroy the city where his nephew was staying. He's thinking, "Hey, my nephew is basically a decent guy... okay, so he's done a couple of bone-headed things, like that whole business a while back where I ended up having to raise an army and rescue him... but basically he's a nice enough guy. I bet there are some other decent people. Maybe in a city that size there could be as many as fifty..."

So he begs God not to destroy the city if there are fifty righteous people in it, but God agrees to that *way* too easily, and Abraham has second thoughts, starts thinking about what the people of the city are like... say, what if there *aren't* fifty? So he asks God if he would spare the city if there were ten fewer righteous people, only forty. Again, God agrees with no argument... A couple of iterations later, Abraham's got God talked down to ten. Surely there are *ten* righteous people. I mean, there's Lot, and his family, and surely they must have some decent friends or something... ten should be no problem at all... right? WRONG. Ten? There's scarcely five. The city is toast.

How many decent, upright, honest lawyers do you suppose there are in North America?

I don't have an exact figure, but if you can prove there are fifty I will personally submit to using ed as my only text editor for a whole week. (No, I don't know how to use it without reading the man page. Normally I'm an Emacs user, so as you can imagine using ed would be rather painful. I'm extremely confident there aren't fifty decent upright honest lawyers in North America.)

Re:These lawyers ought to know better

[Sefer]

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. This case doesn't really relate to the Kazaa lady being convicted based just on "making available;" since their servers transmit a copy of the page to any machine that requests it, they are actually giving you a copy in addition to making one available. Thus, there's no doubt that they've granted you a copy even without resorting to the questionable "making available" theory. I'm in complete agreement that once they've given you that copy you can view it in whatever you want.

I have a problem

[PPH]

I perceive the entire world as screens full of green characters scrolling vertically downwards. Am I violating someone's copyright?

Just a sec. There's a guy knockig at the front door wearing dark glasses who wants to have a word with me about this.

wget -r 'http://www.cybertriallawyer.com'

[blunte]

A few hundred thousand complete pulls of their site should make for interesting log reading and letter writing!

They should...

[A-Rex]

* Render the HTML locally and export to image * Send a content type header, followed by the image Problem solved!

Did anyone else...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... read the "scofflaw blogging" link off their front page? Or should that be "scofflaw morbing"? It's ten different different web personas, and ten different ways of saying people feel more empowered when they're anonymous.

Tell Google now

[future assassin]

Aperantly this company laying copyright claim to

Re:Tell Google now

[future assassin]

Well well I guess I should have previewed first. Google analytics code at the bottom of the page contains this https://ssl.google-analytics.com/urchin.js which they claim copyright to.

Re:Come and get it.

[anagama]

CSAct = new Object; // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

Is Nate Baldwin part of this lawfirm? Is this something they copied of his? If so, isn't it rather wrong to attempt to copyright another's work?

Indefenseble...

[arthurh3535]

I can't believe the idiocy. How can anyone in the world tell the difference between just viewing the web page and viewing the 'source' of it? It's derivative in that it requires the browser to read the whole thing, even the parts that are trying to hide. What morons...

Re:Indefenseble...

[skelly33]

It's called a scare tactic; it is not to be taken seriously by anyone with the capacity for rational thought.

Re:Indefenseble...

[kairu]

I agree. You can look at a webpage and you can look at the source. Only if you know how to "decode" the HTML/CSS/whatever code and get to the content, it shouldn't matter. it's the exact same thing as looking at the page. That's like recording a show on a DVR, then writing down what the News program says. As long as you give credit, it shouldn't matter! As a web developer, I know that some people can "disguise" the code by loading from remote JS files. However, you can just look on a page and copy the info. Ctrl+A + Ctrl+C, open up Notepad, Ctrl+V. Done. Are you going to sue me for that?

Re:Indefenseble...

[yourEgg]

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 one 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

Just on general principle...

[UnCivil Liberty]

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

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Look at their robots.txt. Apparently bots are allowed to copy (some of) their HTML, just not browsers.

this is from TFA

[clsours]

Whoever modded offtopic, this is from the public citizen blog. its not the best, but its not offtopic.
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/you-hereby-agre.html

They were already successful

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

the lawyers have gotten what they wanted -- more free publicity. Of course, it's publicity of the "your a dumbass" variety, but "any publicity is good publicity" or somesuch.

Re:They were already successful

[antic]

Especially since any blogs linking to the site will bump up their page rank...

Re:They were already successful

[pfleming]

Nah, they'll get google bombed or something where users link to the site with something like "Stupidest Internet Lawyers"

Re:They were already successful

[JFitzsimmons]

http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/yourretarded/male

Re:They were already successful

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I correct my own usage error, and get modded offtopic? Gosh, you guys are great. Who wants to waste another mod point modding this one offtopic? (I can do this all day!)

Re:They were already successful

[JGaiser]

Actually, they don't need a google bomb. The top link on a search for Stupidest Internet Lawyer is a Sponsored Link for guess who...

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Smauler]

Erm... what world do you live on? No, it's not illegal, anywhere. Even here in the UK where we have some weird data protection act implications (which are beneficial in loads of ways), recording IPs is fine, since the IP is not necessarily tied to a specific person. Where on earth did you get the idea that your IP is somehow private?

If this was a joke, whoooosh for me

This must be fake!

[Nahooda]

This site is so ridiculous it must be fake!

If I were a spammer, I'd follow this model

[PrescriptionWarning]

Dear Sir/Madam,

The quick brown fox has typed a red carpet introduction full of cheery bright frogs.

Legal Notice: By reading the above sentence, you have violated the international trademark/copyright law terms of this email agreement. Any forwarding/reproduction of this email will result in a copyright infringement upon the originator of this email. Please remit payment of $2,500 USD to prevent litigation to Paypal ID: carpetFrog

Geodetector In Da House

[Anonymous Coward]

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

These lawyers need to get educated

[neptolemos]

My browser needs to read the html code and if my browser can then I should be able to. If they want to stop my browser then no one can get to their website! These people are not even worth listening to. They should be beaten with dictionaries and other learning materials until it absorbs through osmosis.

I was going to send them an email ...

[ubrgeek]

... letting them know what I thought of them, but then I realized I'd get in trouble: I'm sure they've copyrighted the term, "Dumbass."

Re:Publicity Stunt

[Cyko_01]

I suppose getting slashdotted does get you a lot of page hits on Google, but I don't think it's the kind of attention that they want

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[iminplaya]

Morons?

Let me ask you something. Have you ever heard of these people until now?... Operators are standing by. 1-800-623-3925 x665. That's 1-800-MADEYALOOK

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[gravij]

"you should not make any copies of any part of this website in any way"

Of course, I'm in trouble too because the every act of viewing their page required me to download a copy of it. I suppose they could put their website on a CD, then mail it to everybody who calls in and asks to visit their website.

Hold on there! They are allowed to have copyright on their site, and that doesn't hinder you "copying" it to view it. The copyright is to protect them from you using their design, layout, code, images on your own site.

Search Engines

[Fred Nerk]

Apparently, according to their user agreement, they don't permit search engines from indexing the site.

1. That's stupid.
2. Incorrect.. Search for "Dozier" on Google, and you'll find it.

While they do have a robots.txt file, it doesn't specify that search indexes should not index the site, only portions of it.

And the Zope management interface is available.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[skeftomai]

My boss told me that, and I heard it from someone else once, too. We make a non-open source CMS, so maybe there are some legal ramifications with that.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[big_paul76]

Take a look at this page:
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/scofflaw-bloggers

The overall tone of their whole site seems to be an assumption that the best thing you can use the legal system for is to silence dissent and/or criticism.

Hardly surprising that these wankers aren't on the side of the angels, eh?

Google Analytics

[digitalgimpus]

They say:

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.

Contains Google Analytics Script tag. They have asserted ownership. I believe that's legally copyright infringement.

That also looks like a Dreamweaver/Fireworks generated site... and we all know those products leave a few lines of JS behind. They are likely claiming copyright of that too.

OOh I'd love to see Google sue them. The <ironic/> tag would just burst with joy.

Re:Google Analytics

[shinmai]

the tag is just like

Hmmm. Good Idea

[Arcane_Rhino]

Not the view of their source angle, that is just mooseshit and they know it. But it is a great way to get traffic to the site by the "so sue me" crowd.

These people are scum of the lowest order...

[Jason Levine]

They're the folks who claimed that their Cease and Desist letter regarding bad online reviews of one of their clients was copyrighted and thus couldn't be posted online: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/dont-publish-th.html

They also proudly represent spammers: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam

The firm is "Dozier Internet Law"

[BillX]

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.

Re:The firm is "Dozier Internet Law"

[CodeBuster]

You should have tossed all of the email addresses on their site to the pr0n and pills spammers while you were at it, given them a taste of their own medicine.

Re:The firm is "Dozier Internet Law"

[arpy]

This page on their site - "Top Ten Blogger Personas: The Mobosphere Unveiled" - is pretty damn hilarious.

Number 5:
Nerd
This is the guy who is scared to talk with a girl, but behind the keyboard, all alone, morphs into a Casanova. This empowerment of anonymity creates an omnipotent persona, and for the first time the nerd feels the effect of power and control, gets an adrenaline buzz when he exercises it, and he exercises it often, usually creating or perpetuating a volatile situation in which he feels he can outsmart the "opposition". There is no principle involved. His blog postings are all about the adrenaline. It is hard to know if you are dealing with this type online...his posts are intelligent and on their face credible. But, once you identify the nerd blogger, he cowers and goes away, usually forever.

Re:The firm is "Dozier Internet Law"

[riegel]

Your comment is confusing to me. How were the spammers connected to Dozier? Or are you saying Dozier was the spammer? When you say "one of the spam posts advertised this company" what does the "this" refer to?

Re:The firm is "Dozier Internet Law"

[BillX]

Hard to say. The spam post was some advertising copy from Dozier's site, bearing a payload link to Dozier's site (which a moderator replaced with a snarky comment). The diatribe from J. W. Dozier claimed they had nothing to do with the spam, but if that is actually the case, it raises the question of who would actually spend their time and bandwidth to spam on behalf of an unaffiliated third party. (Not to mention that copyrighted material from a company that primarily makes its money from *copyright litigation* gets posted by Who-Me-Anonymous, followed by a demand letter within a few days... *hmm*)

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Panoptes]

For anyone who'd like to tell the clowns at this legal sideshow exactly what they think of them, there's a Legal Matter Submission form at http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/legal-matter/.

Akin to leaving your front door unlocked?

[Avantare]

My take on this is in order to keep people from viewing the source they need to disable all browsers right click capabilities AND the context menu portion of view source. After all, if they don't do that they are leaving their doors and windows unlocked. How do you expect to keep a thief out of your house? Dumb asses.

Re:Akin to leaving your front door unlocked?

[raju1kabir]

My take on this is in order to keep people from viewing the source they need to disable all browsers right click capabilities AND the context menu portion of view source. After all, if they don't do that they are leaving their doors and windows unlocked. How do you expect to keep a thief out of your house? Dumb asses.

I really, really worry that you might not be speaking sarcastically.

Re:Akin to leaving your front door unlocked?

[rtb61]

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 ;).

This is discrimination

[dhope]

What about the people using clients like netcat? How could I know apriori if I'm allowed to view the source?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Hyperspite]

Is that like getting a red mushroom in Mario? Wouldn't that be BAD for anyone who disagrees with them?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Three more cases to go and they'll gain a temporary geek credebility booster.

Following the success of our recent high-profile advertising campaign, we are delighted to announce the successful completion of 3 new legal matters, bringing our total for the past two years to -1.

Ugh

[koweja]

When you read shit like this you're almost tempted to conclude that it's either a)a joke that nobody gets, or b)a strawman designed to make others (in this case people obsessed with copyrighting everything) look like fools. Then you realize that it's not a joke and some people don't need strawmen to look like fools.

Oh Wow...

[spikedvodka]

If you don't want me reading your HTML code... DON'T FREAKING SEND IT TO ME!

p.s. I read my webpages with curl. suck it up and deal!

Well, that means that...

[coppro]

I'm in ur homepage reading ur source. _

Re:You're in violation.. not linking

[pbhj]

They should use the special protection facility in apache:

"# apachectl stop"

it prevents people from linking to your content (at least via port 80) and stops them from viewing your source code. As a bonus it also cuts bandwidth bills.

Use it today! A better internet experience for all.

...and they are hosting p0rn!

[wbiles]

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/FileLibrary

Re:...and they are hosting p0rn!

[capnez]

Wow...just absolute WOW! The server actually allows you to upload files which may be executed. Seriously, I don't know what to say to this (although some other /. user found some words and kindly put them on their server: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/Examples/FileLibrary/Files/limerick.txt).

Re:...and they are hosting p0rn!

[mdm-adph]

Good lord! Apparently, this legal team is distributing the full copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in PDF form!

Someone should contact the Scholastic, Inc. legal team immediately to inform them of this blatant disrespect of copyright law.

Re:...and they are hosting p0rn!

[Anonymous Coward]

they finally figured out this was open and shut it off
dumbasses....

Strange law firm

[shaitand]

You'd think a bunch of lawyers would know that copyright law doesn't grant the copyright holder any ability to restrict usage of the material, only distribution and copying. Provided you obtain the material legally, you can do anything you like with it. View it, use it as kindling in a fire, etc.

Since the copyright holder is distributing the material to you, you have every right to view it and they have no legal right to stop you.

Access their web site with ...

[Skapare]

... telnet to port 80. Give it the command "GET / HTTP/1.1" followed by "Host : www.cybertriallawyer.com" followed by a blank line. This is a standard network diagnostic method to use when broken non-compliant HTML (like theirs) fails to render (when using a very pedantic browser).

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Timothy Brownawell]

I can't be the only one who immediately went to see what all those are:

• /Backup: standard_error_message
• /Form: standard_error_message
• /acl_users: Zope Quick Start
• /MailHost: standard_error_message
• /test: standard_error_message
• /test1: standard_error_message

So do they sue Microsoft and Mozilla?

[giminy]

I mean, your web browser is reading the source code to their page and then parsing it. I'm not sure if the EULA that comes with your particular web browser places the blame for this copyright infringement on you or on your browser author. I'd suggest contacting a good intellectual property attorney...

Lets all help protect Dozier Internet Law, P.C.

[merc]

Everyone send an e-mail or make a phone call to their upstream Internet Provider, Bay Mountain Inc:

BAYMOUNTAIN.COM
501 E FRANKLIN ST
RICHMOND, VA 23219-2330
804-644-5109 fax: 804-644-5410

Let them know that they are allowing their clients' intellectual property to be leaked against the terms of their alleged copyrights by allowing inbound connections to their clients' host computer's ports 80 and 443.

This leak should be remedied immediately by installing a packet filter on the server, or access control rule on their border routers to prohibit these inbound (and egress) leaks of their valuable IP.

Even better, the host computer should be halted, shut off, locked into a secure room without network connectivity or electricity, and finally place an armed security guard at the entrance.

Viola, secure IP.

Cheers!

P.S. I did not really include Bay Mountain's e-mail address, it's not really their fault they have dipshits as customers.

Re:They could protect source with javascript!

[quacking duck]

I remember coming across a couple of sites like that. To view source on them, just disable Javascript temporarily.

Shades of that DRM scheme that prevented Windows from reading the so-called CD, and cost millions to develop, yet all it took to disable it was a $1 Sharpie. I'd sure like to see these clowns claim that turning JS off is a "circumvention device."

This sounds more like

[I7D]

Entrapment.

Re:This sounds more like

[Ant P.]

Sounds more like Windows' shrink-wrap EULA. Which has been struck down as unenforcable.

reminds me of something

[cakkafracle]

this is nearly as retarded as saying blocking ads in firefox is stealing

The HTML of this post is copyrighted

[Yahma]

You are expressly prohibited from viewing the HTML source of this post. I own the copyright on this post and all the HTML code.

What I posted through their "contact form"...

[txsable]

I decided to post my own "legal" opinion to these dimwits. I'm not a lawyer, I'm a citizen and tech admin...I didn't bother to sign it, but I'm sure if they are really as competent as they claim, they wouldn't have any problem finding me...

The only reason that you wouldn't want people to view your source code (like I do routinely with a source-only browser for websites that I don't trust) is that you don't want anyone seeing how bad your code is.

Also, your assertion of "wholly owned code" is obviously incorrect, as good chunks of the code are either copyright someone else (http://www.mindpalette.com/, for example) or generated by Adobe GoLive. The only thing you may hold copyright on is the actual content of your site; the HTML itself is not and cannot be copyrighted, unless your name is Tim Berners-Lee....

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Vombatus]

Interesting, their site has been cached by Google:

Look out Google - be prepared for the storm troopers to come a knocking. Their user agreement specifically says We do not permit our website to be "spidered"

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Good defense strategy

[billcopc]

See the great thing about lawyers making ridiculous claims is they don't have to go very far to seek defense when the rest of the world sues them over prior art.

I now call to the stand the inventor of the "No Right Click" script!

Seriously. Screw em!

My prefered browser

[eaglesnax]

echo -e "GET / HTTP/1.0\n" | nc www.cybertriallawyer.com 80

Does that make echo and netcat circumvention devices according to the DMCA?

Rally the Troops!!

[CaptinHankey]

"Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission." How funny would it be if their site crashed? http://www.inventor-link.com/ I'm giggling just thinking about it. :)

GoLive

[Kadin2048]

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.

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 .... 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.

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.

Re:GoLive

[hobo sapiens]

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.

Well then, you've just paid $400 for a text editor. Why not try out jEdit or textpad? jEdit is what I use at work even though I have an expensive IDE license, don't think I even installed it.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[bornwaysouth]

I visited because I couldn't believe "Dozier" wasn't fake. I speak British English. The Oxford Dictionary gives:
dozy
      adjective (dozier, doziest)
1 feeling drowsy and lazy.
2 Brit. informal not alert; stupid.

So I thought, "They gotta be kidding, right. This is fair warning"
OK. They are serious.
So if their claim could be valid (they are experts compared to me), then is it legal to for my virus checker to look over their HTML. I'm responsible for my servants I think. Ignorance is no excuse.

Denial of Service Law Attack

[Doc Ruby]

Everyone reading this message should hit their site, view their source, and report to them that you've just violated their indefensible terms. Hopefully, they'll sue each and every one of us, and go broke frivolously.

Re:dynamic html

[debrain]

Shakespeare's character has a quote from the correct page of the instruction manual for this kind of lawyerly behavior: "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." This is a common misconception of what Shakespeare said ...

Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society."

As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking.
- "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - it's a lawyer joke

The same is true today. The common perception of lawyers, vis-à-vis this Shakespearean misquote, has arisen concurrent with the corporate oligarchy which views civil rights and independent thought as a threat to consumerism and profits.

That sounds more cynical than I intended it to, but I don't think it's terribly exaggerated. Rights cease to exist where legal representation falters.

Kind of takes the fun out of the quote though, doesn't it?

This is great!

[swordfishBob]

So much for "making available for download" putting you at fault in copyright disputes!

how about java applets?

[anton_kg]

Actually, java applets is more interesting question for me. Can I decompile java applet and view its source code?
Isn't viewing HTML code is the same with decompilation?
Can somebody draw the reasonable line where I should stop messing around:
- HTML code
- Javascript code
- Flash
- ActiveX/Java applets
- Server side code sometimes available via .inc .java and other bugs on a server.

Re:how about java applets?

[praxis]

Decompilation of a binary, even bytecode binary, is a different beast from reading something published. The information in raw form published at a URL that is publicly accessible *is* what is published. Just because it *can* be rendered doesn't mean it has to be.

The question you raise *is* interesting, but for different reasons than reading HTML *source*, which is actually what's published, not the render, which is device and interpreter specific. A java class file is published in non-source form, for example.

Re:how about java applets?

[anton_kg]

Well, not totally agree ;-)
As an example, html file could be gziped and stored as index.html.gz binary. So your browser should unzip it first and only after that you can see the html source. If your browser (plugin) could display a source code of java applet, it would be tricky. I also can use webproxy tool which requests for index.jsp.bak .gz, ,~, etc that some times gives you some interesting results.

You are right, I'm just trying to rise the questions that it's not 100% clear how far you can go.

Uh-oh Ddozier left the example zope guestbook ...

[jasomenaso]

Here's the url. Don't write anything naughty. http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/GuestBook/addEntry

Unlawful Coercion to Render?

[Azure Khan]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but when you publish a web page on the internet, you are only ASSUMING that the users are choosing to render the code in a method that you intend. You can, I suppose, disable the site with javascript for anyone not using your approved browser, but beyond that, the standard http: request isn't returning a beautiful web page, it is returning ugly lines of code which the CLIENT must render into an understandable form. Beyond blocking your site, can you COERCE me to render?

Web design and lawyers seldom mix.

Re:Unlawful Coercion to Render?

[radja]

in other words.. not view source is the violation, but the userfriendly representation of the original html document is.

Ooops, I copied some of their HTML

[Khyber]

Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
301 Concourse Blvd.
West Shore 111, Suite 300
Glen Allen, VA 23059
Phone: 804-346-9770
FAX: 804-346-0800

Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
9701 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 925
Beverly Hills, California 90212

Certainly publicly available information isn't copyrightable, HTML file or not!

Spammer defenders? :D

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/commercial-email-spam OMG :D How morons like these are even allowed anywhere near bar...

Re:dynamic html

[theshowmecanuck]

Rights cease to exist where legal representation falters.

Rights cease when common people can't understand what rights they have because lawyers obfuscate the English language with legalese and thereby try to cement their own overpriced job security. Also by way of insisting on self regulating their own (hah!) legal monopoly on administering and representing the legal system. Too bad we don't have a justice system any more or the modern lawyer would likely be tarred and feathered.

Unecessary ...

[NotZed]

The source as well as the 'rendered content' is already covered by copyright. Big deal. Yes, you cannot just go willy-nilly copying anyone's web page unless it is specifically allowed (odd, you would think it was from most of the comments here).

Copyright can't control viewing of material, only copying. So to say 'you can't view the source' 'its copyrighted' is utter nonsense. You MUST make a copy of the source code in order to view anything in the first place - perhaps they misundertand how web browsers work.

I wouldn't be hiring these 'IP' intellectuals any time soon if I were in need of one, that's for sure.

Re:Unecessary ...

[shinmai]

You of course mean 'IP Property intellectuals', obviously. I love how they advertise theirselves as Internet Lawyers and Spam Attorneys, and also drop gems like "With our somewhat unique perspective, we are simply not comfortable exposing highly confidential and proprietary client information online." in their User Agreement. It's really a relief to know they're not comfortable exposing confidental information. That's my #1 professional lawyer pet peeve.

Adobe GoLoser

[punxit]

they own their frickin code? hahaha! yeah, i "own some code" myself, but i'd never stop anyone from viewing it online. they didn't even write the frickin code! it was written by adobe golive! also, if they think that IPs are not "personally identifiable" then they obviously arent too privy of internet law and how the internet works. having done tech support for a damn decade, i can tell you that you can lookup the owner of an IP online, usually resulting in the naming of a person's ISP, or the naming of a person, personally, if they own the IP. if they own it, you've personally identified them. if they don't, their isp can personally identify them. what a bunch of fucktards.

I read a book the other day...

[edunbar93]

And it was copyrighted too. I wonder if that means I wasn't supposed to read the book, on the off chance that I *might* copy some of it. Perhaps, that book would give me a good idea for my own book, and then the author could sue my ass for violating his proprietary secrets.

But somehow, "software" is different. It's magical and stuff, and if I look at how they do things, I might be inspired to make similar but different magic. That sort of thing must be stopped.

Re:I read a book the other day...

[shinmai]

You should know that the last two sentences of your comment shall be featured on a t-shirt I plan on wearing in the very near future..

Re:They could protect source with javascript!

[ultranova]

I'd sure like to see these clowns claim that turning JS off is a "circumvention device."

I wouldn't. I like being able to turn off Javascript, and don't want that functionality removed when the judge decides that yes, it is indeed a circumvention device. After all, this is the copyright law we are talking about...

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[deniable]

Their robots.txt says something different:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /Backup
Disallow: /Form
Disallow: /acl_users
Disallow: /MailHost
Disallow: /test
Disallow: /test1

Is this a shopping list or what?

asshats

[monkeyfromx]

Even I'm not that stupid...

Re:dynamic html

[richie2000]

Rights cease to exist where legal representation falters. Ubi non accusator, ibi non judex.

Of course, I'd rather translate it as "where there is no police, there is no speed limit".

Oblig. Matrix quote

[threaded]

..there's way too much information to decode the Matrix. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead. Hey uh, you want a drink?

Re:dynamic html

[fyngyrz]

Read again, this time for content. I said it was what Shakepeare's CHARACTER said. It was a direct quote. The context was mine.

Re:dynamic html

[Omnifarious]

I lawyers are somewhat neutral to a slight positive overall in preserving individual liberty. But I can think of very notable ways in which lawyers are definitely a strong negative. SLAPP suits, C&D letters, DMCA takedown notices, and patent law are definitely among them.

This particular case counts too, though I expect that this assertion on the part of this particular group of lawyers will be shot down pretty quickly. Or at least widely ignore and unenforceable.

Copyright

[jandersen]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of copyright to protect the author's right to copy the material so that people are only allowed to read it, but not to make copies of it? If copyright meant 'not allowed to see', how would people read books?

Unfortunately, this is how many people tend to develop in their profession. They learn something, get their exams, think that now they know it all, so they can dispense with all the hard stuff, like thinking. It's not just lawyers, but I do believe they are among the worst; perhaps it is because law is a subject that you can learn without necessarily having to have a lot of creative talent, analytical skill, empathy or any insight into anything at all. Not to say that all lawyers are like that, but there's a lot of that kind.

next up...

[mathfeel]

sue Microsoft and Mozilla for interpreting their source code. After all, they produce software whose main (if not sole) purpose is to read and interpret their source code. Hey, they are money sucking lawyers and Microsoft's got the dough.

Interesting

[ta bu shi da yu]

They are copyrighting someone else's code. See http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement - the source has the following: // OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

Yet from MindPalette's website, it says:

SCRIPT TERMS & CONDITIONS: By downloading and using our scripts and plug-ins, you assume all responsibility for their use or misuse and agree that we are not responsible or liable for any damages they may cause, directly or indirectly. MindPalette is under no obligation to provide product support or installation help. All scripts and plug-ins are offered as-is and at your own risk.

---

Seems to me that the one's infringing copyright might be the lawyers.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[James_Duncan8181]

This is possibly the most unintentionally entertaining page I have ever read.

"Druggie
Or, maybe "liquid courage" would be more appropriate. This guy is exactly what comes to mind. During the day this blogger is a normal guy, but at night he returns to the sanctity of his home, gets drunk or high, and goes out on the web looking for "hook-ups" and blogging on his "hang-ups". This guy is hard to detect as a fraudster, and sometimes won't recall what he said online the next day while under the influence. He posts aggressive, false and arbitrary attacks on whatever issue of the day (or night) catches his fancy."

It's like when I woke up and realised I had written a script in Perl.

They're hackers, they have your IP, and you linked

[FoamingToad]

I'm going to get myself a dog and close the curtains before I go on a HTML-scraping rampage.

F_T

Re:dynamic html

[Anonymous Coward]

Misinterpretation of a quote != misquote.

But congratulations on doing a google search and posting a paragraph from the first page you found.

Join their community

[rimsky]

Since they're running Zope, and didn't bother disabling the example installs, join the ad-hoc online community that is cybertriallawer.com's guestbook:

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/acl_users/Examples/GuestBook

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[mrchaotica]

Of course they're "pioneers" of Internet law! What else do you call it when their ideas are completely different from everybody else's (regardless of the fact that they're insane)?

Re:dynamic html

[olddaedalus]

Actually, an exceptional level of congratulations are in order, as this subthread's OP has neglected to actually *read* the page he has linked to. The page at spectacle (http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html) that debrain cites as evidence instead contends that his interpretation is laughably incorrect, and the result of an attempt to turn a Shakespearean frown upside down. If you'll scroll down, the author later contends,

DICK.
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.

Email

[cybergen007]

For those of you who want to email them, mail: jwd@cybertriallawyer.com

Re:Not surprising

[REBloomfield]

It's GoLive code, I believe.

Re:Wait, copyright?

[MysteriousPreacher]

Their claim is backed up by the DMCA. The ability to view the source in a browser is clearly an insidious way to circumvent their DRM and reverse engineer their fine web site. I was so impressed by the code, I couldn't resist reading the whole thing.

I'm going to turn myself in to the authorities, and use my phone call to ask my browser vendor to explain why they provided me with such a dangerous hacking tool? Honestly, this is like giving away a revolver with every McDonalds Happy Meal!

Re:Guilty? No.

[MysteriousPreacher]

It's no different to the bogus cease and desist letters that lawyers throw around, knowing themselves that their is no legal basis in their demands.

It's understandable when a layman makes a mistake when asserting their legal rights, but there should be a law against law firms doing this. As far as I know, RICO can only kick-in if plaintif actually files a suit.

Re:They could protect source with javascript!

[techno-vampire]

To view source on them, just disable Javascript temporarily.

Why bother? Just save the page to a file and read the file. Let's see them stop that with Javascript!

Translation:

[Bustergates]

We own the code, we own the text, we own the browsers. We own Google and all the content it points to. Al Gore owns the internet but we own the Starship Enterprise. We own the codes, the HTML code, the C code, the Java code, and the Morse code. You can view the HTML code with a standard browser but I bet you can't view the porn can you. You can't because porn beats the pants off EULA, Buella and intellectual property law any day. There is nothing wrong with your Tivo. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image; make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control all that you see and hear. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to the Outer Limits. You are about to be sued.

-Jeneric Bozo-

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[macshit]

Some real gems there!

For instance, this handy list of the Top Ten Blogger Personas: Pickpocket, Wacko, Druggie, Nerd, Rookie, Sadist, Criminal, Mis-leader.

Followed by this useful advice:

As businesses attempt to leverage user generated content ("UGC") into a valuable tool in the Web 2.0 environment, the proliferation of the scofflaws interrupting the free flow of credible speech in the online world puts at risk the reputation and integrity of UGC and raises the very real risk that consumers will begin viewing web content with disdain and suspicion.

I'm really, really curious what they'd think about Slashdot...

Heinlein

[mattr]

Excellent, maybe the lawyers can feed on each other and dissolve in their own stew! :) They are the facilitators of the Decline of the American Empire. (which is a movie and will probably be a chapter in the history books, unfortunately).

I have often thought of Robert Heinlein's take on it. His future history has "The Year They Killed The Lawyers" (in Number of the Beast), in an alternate reality.

*SPOILER*
One place our adventurers find is a country that ensures that people are pilot and careful not to cause others harm even unintentionally, through a draconian practice called "balancing" (literal eye for an eye) which among other things has eradicated drunk driving and sexual crimes. Trying to look up something called "The Year They Killed The Lawyers" to understand what happened in the local library got the librarian asking them why they required access to sealed records. However, the intrepid adventurers still choose the area as an oasis of safety, while acknowledging that some unbearable people they know wouldn't last long there.

I think one side of the U.S. downfall is the narcissistic cronyism of the neocons, another side is the MAFIAA and all the corporate lawyers and lobbyists, and another side is the abject idiocy of the telecoms from AT&T all the way down to the cable guys. But it all might take a turn for the better if there was a sudden shortage of lawyers. Maybe Americans would turn to churches, community arbiters and the Mafia like they do in Japan where justice is not really available unless you make it your life's crusade and even then it won't make you rich.

Question

[Pykasye]

How can that site claim ownership of the code when technically HTML is the intellectual property of the IETF?

Dude, you really need to actually READ that page

[Omni-Cognate]

It does not say what you think it says. The last paragraph is particularly apt.

As long as there are lawyer, there will be "lawyer jokes". And lawyers will show how those jokes ring true by trying to explain how such lampooning really constitutes praise for their profession, thus by example justifying the jokes more than ever.

The ultimate anti-lame-DRM device

[porneL]

If page obfuscates/encrypts source code with JS, use this bookmarklet:

javascript:alert(document.documentElement.innerHTML)

(outerHTML gives better results, but not in Firefox).

Copyright Law

[brunes69]

Since when does copyright law allow one to restrict another from reading or viewing the material?

Copyright law is soley about COPYING the material. Hence COPY-RIGHT. It isn't VIEW-RIGHT law.

Either these guys need to go back to law school (or even high school), or stop smoking the pot.

Copyright?

[zoomshorts]

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/book4/ch02.html The world knows that
HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee. HE owns the copyright and this douchebag
is using HIS invention.

Perhaps the REAL copyright owner would like to sue this moron. We can only hope
it happens.

so sue me ...

[rs232]

<title>Internet Lawyer, Trademark Infringement Lawyer, Domain Name Dispute Specialist!</title>
<meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Dozier Internet Law and Dozier Intenet Law, PC are top rated Internet Lawyer Specialists representing business interests on the web as advocate and legal counsel.>

<meta name="KEYWORDS" content="dozier internet law, dozier internet law pc, dozier lawyer, dozier internet, internet lawyer, internet lawyers, interent attorney, internet attorneys, john dozier, john w dozier, john w dozier jr">
<META name="y_key" content="1dfad02220b8c67b" /> <!-- For Yahoo authentication -->
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive">

Re:dynamic html

[capnez]

I think I'm missing something in your comment. You link to a page that argues exactly the opposite of what you are saying. It actually says on that page that there is "a myth of "correction", where it is "explained" that this is line really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role", which seems to be what you are arguing for.

I am no Shakespeare expert (and a law student on top), so I'd rather stay neutral on this one. ;-)

I'm curious...

[Luke Dawson]

...to know why they have keywords if they state in their privacy section that they forbid search engines from indexing their page.

Insert coal, retrieve diamond.

[pjt48108]

What a bunch of tight-assed wankers!

Another quote....

[Bake]

My favorite lawyer quote is this from the 1939 movie about Jesse James.

"If we're gonna have law and order in the west, the first thing we've gotta do is take all the lawyers and shoot them down like dogs"

Re:dynamic html

[debrain]

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. Ironic isn't it? ;)

Substantively, you may find this interesting (with a context-sensitive quote), mind:

President's Message, A Call to Arms: Federal Laws Are Marginalizing the Nation's Lawyers and Judges
July 2006
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a_call_to_arms/

Good luck on the bar.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[sqlrob]

Erm... what world do you live on? No, it's not illegal, anywhere.

Congratulations! You have earned a position as a slashdot editor

Re:dynamic html

[debrain]

Rights cease when common people can't understand what rights they have because lawyers obfuscate the English language with legalese and thereby try to cement their own overpriced job security. Also by way of insisting on self regulating their own (hah!) legal monopoly on administering and representing the legal system. Too bad we don't have a justice system any more or the modern lawyer would likely be tarred and feathered. You're absolutely right. In broader terms, economic rights (the right to afford legal representation) is central to all fundamental human rights, and that economic right arises in two ways:
1. Economic redistribution of wealth to the masses so everyone can afford legal representation, and
2. Affordable legal services relative to that economic redistribution.

Legal services seem costly compared to the present redistribution of wealth, and that is in no small part due to the convolution of the statutes and common law. However, the state of these statutes is a direct result of the elected officials who implement them (or corporations with generous donations who write them), not legal practitioners. Further, the obfuscated English tends to arise less intentionally (though sometimes), and more historically with words and phrases that have common meaning (much as in the medical field).

The legal monopoly is hardly exclusive. The barrier to entry being entrance to one of numerous law schools and payment for law school and passing a bar exam.

That's not to disagree with your point that legal services are too expensive. I agree with that, but I think that is an economic and political problem just as much as a problem with the legal system.

Absolute crap

[Anonymous Coward]

That sort of claim is absolute crap, and is the result of not understanding what they have created (and probably isn't helped by the fact that they apparently used GoLive - a WYSIWYG editor - to create the page) or the technology involved in creating/displaying it.

They have put their page on the PUBLIC INTERNET and explicitly made it available for people to view. They cannot then claim "it's our intellectual property, you can't look at it!" It's contradictory. Remember: they are NOT making the page (as you see it in your browser) available - they are making the HTML code behind it available. The specifics of rendering that code into what we consider a "web page" is an implementation detail left up to your specific browser. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. They've been confused by the metaphor that a WYSIWYG web editor provides - that the visible web page is somehow a real, physical thing, and that the HTML code behind it is somehow "secret," when, in fact, the only real, physical thing IS the HTML code itself - the "page" as you view it is an ephemeral construct. (Of course, all this talk of "real, physical things" is kind of odd, given the fact that we're actually just talking about bits, which are themselves just electromagnetic traces on a disk, or pulses in a wire... but I digress.)

It would be like someone putting up a picture on a billboard on the highway, and then putting a sign next to it that says "the art in this picture is our intellectual property - therefore, you cannot look at it!"

Or, even better, a billboard that says "think of an orange" and then a sign that says "(C) Orange company. All images of oranges are our intellectual property, and you may not visualize an orange in your mind without permission."

Because that's sort of how a web browser works - it takes text (HTML) and "imagines" (what we computer people pretentiously call "render") the graphical page.

This is what happens when lawyers THINK they understand something.

My only hope is that they will read this explanation and understand how they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[defnoz]

Dang, I can't remember where I downloaded it to. Oh well, let's try that download again...

Remarkable

[sjames]

By putting the content on the web, they re implicitly permitting linking since that is, after all a natural part of the web. They don't own the content of MY website, so I'll a href= if I want to.

Coinsidering that the purpose of HTML is to provide semantic level tags and rendering HINTS, it's really up to the browser how to present that information. For example, my browser, "telnet" chooses to render it as semantic tags in html :-)

I think I'll change my browser ID string to "By serving content, you agree to be featured on www.flamingasshats.com or any other site of my choosing. You further agree to release any and all copyrighted works into the public domain retroactive to their date of creation."

One pile of legal nonsense deserves another.

Personally, I suggest that the Bar Association take them at their word, that is, accept that they REALLY DO believe that the law works that way, and so disbar them for gross incompetance.

They're developers too!

[wk633]

We are Lawyers for Web Developers

Not only have we been representing web developers for many years, but many of our attorneys worked in the web development field. John W. Dozier, Jr. founded an e-commerce company in 1994 and developed a broad array of web based transaction processing, software GUI, database, and ASP applictions[sic]. So, we know the industry from the inside out.

http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/developers

It's *MY* web-site . . . DON'T LOOK!!

[Eat COBOL And Die]

So they put stuff on their web site, and get angry when people actually read it... Their *WEB SITE* for chrissakes!

As copyright lawyers I can accept it is difficult for them to understand that "telnet" is a valid web-browser, even if tables don't render quite as nifty as with Firefox (gee, they may not even have *heard* about telnet). But I would at least have expected the term "public domain" to ring a bell.

If they're so desperate, why don't they just send spam-mails with their content and then sue the whole world?

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[Catiline]

I'm really, really curious what they'd think about Slashdot...

I'd say "Wretched hive of scum and villany" except I fear they would partner with LucasFilm to sue me for copyright infringement.

OT: Golive

[Kadin2048]

I use a Mac so I use TextMate as my editor (worth every goddamn penny, just in case anyone's on the fence); it's similar to jEdit in a lot of ways. I keep GoLive around because it has some nice features for working with CSS, mostly. It also has some nice organizational/management features.

I'm not against text editors but it's sort of a straight-editor vs. IDE thing. GoLive is sort of like an IDE for HTML, and that's useful sometimes. Also, I got the version I use a while ago under some special pricing; I don't think I paid $100 for it. At that price I think it's a decent deal; at $400 or whatever their retail price is, I think you're absolutely right -- you'd be better off using a good text editor with syntax highlighting and then doing the organizational stuff separately.

I suspect that Adobe is going to kill GoLive one of these days, maybe after the current version, in order to promote Dreamweaver. I'm a little surprised they haven't done it already, actually.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging..

[poot_rootbeer]

"Our firm has handled 252 legal matters in the past two years"
Three more cases to go and they'll gain a temporary geek credebility booster.

Yeah, but then if they take one more case after that, they'll overflow and go back to zero.

Which is unexpected, because this story leads me to believe they are a two-bit operation, not 8-bit.

Great Interview to Download!

[Slashdot Parent]

There is a great interview posted on the site here.

I haven't listened to it at all, but the file is 37.5 MB. I downloaded it a few times to test the speed of my broadband connection. Seems my broadband connection is working just fine.

Always good to check! I think I'll check again.

Re:What about search engines

[Rizzen]

So does that its illegal for the search engine bots to "view" their page for their "protected" keywords? I can just see it now, small law firm gets CRUSHED by Google, Yahoo, et. al.

With all due respect...

[Roadkills-R-Us]

...these people are sub-morons and deserve to be publicly pilloried, and left to rot in stocks for the rest of their lives. And I'm probably being too lenient, at that. It's jackasses like this that are substantially responsible for how screwed up the legal system is here.

I suspect Shakespeare had these guys in mind, or at least their ancestors, when he penned that famous lawyer quote.

Unless they're just joking, in which case they desperately need to take some classes for the humor-impaired.

Do you guys notice?

[SystemR]

This is the same law firm that wrote cease and desist letter to public citizen. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/1453254&tid=123

Re:What about search engines

[slacknhash]

Aren't we in fact downloading a copy of their code into our cache every time a browser interprets the page, for that matter? Unless the page is served with a no-cache directive, that is...

Schrodinger crimes

[Poromenos1]

If you stole something but noone has seen it, did you still commit a crime?

Re:dynamic html

[IdeaMan]

Only a lawyer could say that with a straight face.

What's particularly priceless is the point you made that (paraphrasing) "No, its not a monopoly, all you need to do is spend 5 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and pass a difficult test" in order to argue in a court of law.

I doubt lawyers 100 years ago had 1/10 the education todays lawyers had, and they didn't need it because the laws were shorter and simpler.

I'm a computer programmer. The difference between the laws I write and the rules/laws you write and interpret are:
Mine are tested thoroughly before application to a live system.
Mine are designed with the mantra that smaller is better. Large laws/code has more bugs.

I read that webpage about the lawyer joke being positive towards lawyers and I disagree. Basically Ss is making a joke about killing all the lawyers in order to get a utopia. Although it was the bad guys making the joke, the joke would have fallen flat if the audience hadn't wanted it. That's what makes the whole joke funny. In other cases Shakespeare does poke fun at lawyers.

Copyright Infringement Warning Button!!

[orgelspieler]

Copyright Warning Signup

This has got to be a hoax, right? RIGHT?!?

Don't forget: "Beware of Online Legal Advice." This must be how the incompleteness theorem applies to lawyers.

Hyperlink = P2P

[cmdurham]

Code is not content. Particularly not in the case of HTML code or any code presented to the WWW. The web is a forum for delivering content. The way to provide that content is through open standards using code that is interpereted by browsing software built to those standards. Unlike closed-source code used in commercial software, the compiling of that code is done on the end-user's workstation. When a content provider provides me with content they do so by allowing me to download the code and the encoded content. I - by token of my chosen browser - then compile that code and view it. But the code has been given to me - not the product of it. I produce the content on my workstation. Effectively, the content provider has given me the manuscript and I've plated it on my printing press and produced a volume. A company claiming that the code is protected intellectual property may have a point in that if I were to copy and republish the code I would be plagiarizing them, however to object to the viewing of that code is incorrect because it is that very code they are giving to me under the supposition that I will compile it for viewing. If I were to follow my printing press analogy it would be fair to say that the demand not to view HTML code would be like handing me a book and expecting me never to acknowledge the formatting - the fact that a paragraph ends, the chapterization, the fact that a superscript number corresponds to a footnote much the way a hyperling references another web page. If I were to take this argument to it's logical conclusion I would argue that under these circumstances providing me a hyperlink to a page from another content provider is either 1) plagiarism because duplication of the target page's content is implied by the presence of the link; or 2) piracy because the source page's provider is publishing the target provider's intellectual property by giving you a tool to access it. If HTML code is intellectual property then it only stands to reason that should be stricken from the standard because it represents a tool for illegal P2P file sharing.

Testimonials of their greatness

[scuzzman]

This was in the "testimonials" on the right...

"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.

Apparently it's not just the big companies that know squat about technology...

Re:dynamic html

[NaDrew]

Of course, I'd rather translate it as "where there is no police, there is no speed limit".

I learned it as "Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it."

Re:dynamic html

[debrain]

Only a lawyer could say that with a straight face. Only a lawyer could say what?

What's particularly priceless is the point you made that (paraphrasing) "No, its not a monopoly, all you need to do is spend 5 years of your life, thousands of dollars, and pass a difficult test" in order to argue in a court of law.

I doubt lawyers 100 years ago had 1/10 the education todays lawyers had, and they didn't need it because the laws were shorter and simpler. Law is much more accessible now than it ever has been in history, particularly with the advent of the internet. Concurrently, while laws are complicated now, only recently have they been geared towards accessibility. Once law was the purview of the aristocracy. If I recall correctly, Lord Denning was the first commoner to be appointed to the House of Lords appeals (the highest court in England), and that only happened in the mid-1900's. Further, the use of Latin in the law has dissolved significantly compared to how much it was used a hundred years ago. Finally, educational resources are commonly accessible in the first world, be they through subsidized education, scholarships, or need-based bursaries.

So the artificial barriers to entry maintained by the aristocracy are diminishing, there are oodles of resources on the internet that provide easy-to-read information, convoluted language and Latin is no longer predominant, and education is relatively accessible compared to a hundred years ago. I would say we are much better off today than a hundred years ago.

I'm a computer programmer. The difference between the laws I write and the rules/laws you write and interpret are:
Mine are tested thoroughly before application to a live system.
Mine are designed with the mantra that smaller is better. Large laws/code has more bugs. I'm a professional programmer and a lawyer, so I can speak with some satisfaction on both topics. I agree that the benefit of simplicity applies to law as equally as to code. However, imagine if that code was over 1,000 years old, could not be redesigned or replaced (because of uncertainty), and every new system had to integrate with those old (and horrid) systems.

The inability to test the law in advance has lead to innumerable problems, but the law does adapt. Laws change slowly because of resistance to unpredictability - which is a political/economic problem. Legal interpretation is principle based, constraining the outcome of any given dispute to within a certain set of possibilities. Further the common law, by definition, evolves with time with judge-made law. Judges have the power and duty to adapt those things that do not fit, strike out those things that contradict our principles, and read into the law those things that need to be read. Consequently, the law is tested, it is resistant to change, it is focused and constrained by governing principles, and it evolves over time.

I have an inkling that had software been subject to the same problems as the law, it would not be so different (vis-à-vis the ancient mainframe systems; computers have only been around for a few decades and look at the ungodly mess they managed to create with that --- i.e. JCL). Though with luck, perhaps software design and development will avoid some of these issues that are the bane of the law, and perhaps those lawyering can learn something from how we avoid those issues when we code.

I read that webpage about the lawyer joke being positive towards lawyers and I disagree. Basically Ss is making a joke about killing all the lawyers in order to get a utopia. Although it was the bad guys making the joke, the joke would have fallen flat if the audience hadn't wanted it. That's what makes the whole joke funny. In other cases Shakespeare does poke fun at lawyers. Shakespeare's commentary on lawyers was satirical. It is an ironic juxtaposition of contradictory views - the popular conception of lawyer greed and selfishness, in contrast with the idea that their eradication is the quickest way to anarchy. I am under the impression that this is the commonly accepted view by those educated in such matters.

Pioneer

[Mateo_LeFou]

From their site: "I'm here with John W. Dozier, Jr., who is a pioneer in Internet law..."

Ah, *that's the word I was looking for: "pioneer". Doing something others have not yet tried.

Like e.g. claiming that you get to dictate what ppl can do with material that you broadcast indiscriminately to anyone who'll listen.

A bold step forward.