Slashdot Log In
Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Oct 18, 2007 05:26 PM
from the thinking-this-is-a-publicity-stunt dept.
from the thinking-this-is-a-publicity-stunt dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A law firm with all sorts of interesting views on copyright has decided to go the extra mile. As reported on Tech Dirt, they've decided that viewing the HTML source of their site is a violation of copyright. From the site's EULA: 'We also own all of the code, including the HTML code, and all content. As you may know, you can view the HTML code with a standard browser. We do not permit you to view such code since we consider it to be our intellectual property protected by the copyright laws. You are therefore not authorized to do so.'"
Related Stories
[+]
How Not to Write a Cease-and-Desist Letter 235 comments
In our overly litigious society it seems that many companies are all too happy to fire off a cease-and-desist letter if they see something they don't like. Many times these letters end up online just causing further embarrassment for the company. One such company has decided to try scaring their targets out of this response by including a copyright notice for their cease-and-desist letter. Public Citizen has fielded one of these dumb letters and has invited them to try to assert their cease-and-desist copyright (which isn't even registered).
Firehose:Law firm claims copyright on viewing HTML source by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
:o
Now sue me. Pls ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now sue me. Pls ! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now sue me. Pls ! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement [cybertriallawyer.com]
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 [cybertriallawyer.com]
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 ! (Score:5, Interesting)
These lawyers ought to know better (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These lawyers ought to know better (Score:5, Funny)
Re:dynamic html (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Cache-Control: no-render (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cache-Control: no-render (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cache-Control: no-render (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want anyone to view (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you don't want anyone to view (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
(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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Authorize my foot in your asses. (Score:5, Funny)
Smells good.
Invalid HTML (Score:5, Insightful)
Better still: (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Invalid HTML (Score:4, Insightful)
they seem a bit stressed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they seem a bit stressed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they seem a bit stressed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they seem a bit stressed (Score:5, Funny)
int addFour ( int x ) {
return (x - 4);
}
Re:they seem a bit stressed (Score:5, Funny)
Funny. I was thinking the same thing. Only I was thinking they need to go get FUCKED.
Content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Content? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who are too lazy to do some digging... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if their site got hacked? (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
They use an OSS CMS, nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
So no visiting either? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
I'm 'wget' - come arrest me! (Score:5, Funny)
% while 1
while? wget -rm -np http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/ [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! (Score:5, Funny)
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."
This is why law needs a "duh" clause (Score:5, Informative)
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!"
In other words... (Score:5, Funny)
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
If you actually read the source you find... (Score:4, Interesting)
RFC 1149 fetch needed (Score:5, Funny)
Then to archive the transmit and receive buffers in a book.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html [faqs.org]
--
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.
--
advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Their HTML code revealed (Score:5, Funny)
Ha ha ha, not only can I view their precious HTML code, I'm posting it to Slashdot for all the world to see!
Some of their code revealed!!!!one1 (Score:5, Funny)
<html>
<p>
And the most valuable, apparently:
<font>
(posted anonymous for obvious reasons)
Those guys had to become programmers (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
Reading != Infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
-- Internet Content Company CEO.
The firm is "Dozier Internet Law" (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Apropo legal responce (Score:5, Informative)
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram" [wikipedia.org].