Slashdot Mirror
Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source
An anonymous reader writes "A law firm with all sorts of interesting views on copyright has decided to go the extra mile. As reported on Tech Dirt, they've decided that viewing the HTML source of their site is a violation of copyright. From the site's EULA: 'We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.'"
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
:o
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Frankly, I'm surprised they permit browsers to render their precious markup.
then don't publish it online.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I just went and stoled me some of that there intellectual property.
Smells good.
W3C says that the page isn't valid HTML - does that invalidate their claim?
i think they just need to get laid REALLY bad.
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?
The name of the law firm in question is Dozier Internet Law. The link is to their web page. Enjoy!
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
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.
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
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?
% 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.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
They have placed HTML (an interpreted language) in public space to be viewed by people visiting their site.
If this were source code of some sort where users were supposed to be separated from the code then they may have ground to stand on, but the point is the exact text of their web page must be read and interpreted and is granted freely as such.
Hopefully this will bring the judge to the final ruling of: "duh!"
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
All our source are belong to us.
Really though, they are idiots. HTML isn't some magical closed source EXE, as much as they would like it to be.
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?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
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.
--
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.
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram".
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
Ha ha ha, not only can I view their precious HTML code, I'm posting it to Slashdot for all the world to see!
Here is some of their super secret codes revealed:
<html>
<p>
And the most valuable, apparently:
<font>
(posted anonymous for obvious reasons)
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? :)
They use the law as if you can program the world, just if you say so:
/Backup /Form /acl_users /MailHost /test /test1
/
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:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
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:
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.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
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."
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
This EULA and website is by and for fanboys.
intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry
What hacking industry?
We make no representations, express or implied, concerning the functionality, security, or technical integrity of the button, and while the button is hosted by you and merely links to our site, we still provide the button solely on an "as is" basis.
The phrase "the button" is defined two paragraphs later, and poorly at that.
We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws.
Very very disingenuous. Copyright law protects against....COPYING! (not viewing; ever heard of this new technology called THE PRINTED WORD?). Also it is nearly universally refered to as copyright law, not "the copyright laws"
Dozier Internet Law, P.C. obviously has the capability to immediately react to such misappropriation,
The word obviously has no legal value, and is out of place in an EULA. The whole point of an EULA is to make an agreement explicit in every detail.
Of course, we do not sell any of the information collected on our website.
Again "Of course" has no place in an EULA
Businesses of the Internet, hear my cry: Do not use 15 year olds as your legal counsel!
Seagoon: Shut up Eccles!
Eccles: Shut up Eccles!
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.
Ah yes, I've had contact from these yokels before. A while back a message board I administer got hit with a spam run, one of the spam posts advertised this company. One of the moderators cheerily replaced the payload link to Dozier's site with the text "Edited to remove references to legal company. Don't be so damn cheap, go and buy advertising." ...prompting of course a demand letter from the company claiming defamation, copyright infringement (the spam consisted partly of advertising copy direct from their site) as a start.
Mr. Dozier served his legal process by creating an account on our forum and sending a poorly-spelled diatribe using the "report to moderator" feature. In the end I nuked the spam (it was spam, after all), but not before solving the "legal problem" once and for all by banning his account and IP block from the server.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
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?