

Lawyers. Can’t kill ‘em cause they’d sue you from the grave and bill you for their time.
Law Firm Uses Copyright Claim To Say You Can’t View Its Website’s HTML Source
Greg Beck writes in to let us know that the law firm that was recently challenged for claiming that it was a copyright violation to post its cease-and-desist letter also has some other interesting ideas about copyright, including banning people from looking at the firm’s source code. You can view the entire user agreement, but the amusing part is:
“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.”
As Beck says, “That’s kind of like a puppet show invoking copyright to prohibit the audience from looking at the strings. The user agreements of the law firm and one of its clients also contain a bunch of terrible terms that have become all too common: a prohibition on linking to the site, copying anything from the site (even if its fair use), and even referring to the website owner by name. The law firm doesn’t even allow its own clients to say they’re represented by the firm without permission.” He also notes that the law firm in question is demanding that another website remove criticism of one of their clients because it did not receive permission to use the client’s name or link to the website — two things that the laws and the courts have been pretty clear in saying is perfectly legal over the years.












Someone should sue them for not being Accessibility Compliant with that crappy code!
Anyone browsing the website is a criminal then.
bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
html renders text and pictures on the screen and javascript does stupid browser tricks and css makes things pretty — as programming languages, their entire existence is confined to a trivial problem domain
nothing written in HTML/CSS/JavaScript is worth keeping secret, not that you could even hide it anyway
and anybody who thinks otherwise is a total idiot
So if i click the botton just here on my browser i become a criminal??
OOOOO maby my first broken law could be a fun one. I mean why bother with murder or any of those other silly things when i could just click a botton and read some code. That in all honesty i would fail to understand in my present state of elation at this wonderfull news..
Seen the website? Vitriol and angst and just a hint of sadistic pleasure over prosecuting endless amounts of defamation.
But the design of a website can be copyrighted right?
Now they can sue Google… Google has it in their cache…
#26: As I understand it, yes! A website “look” can be copyrighted.
Also notice the fourth from the bottom paragraph in their online “user agreement”. The claim that if you “… are not a legitimate, bona fide prospective client, your access to any page of our website is unauthorized.”
In other words, Mr Dvorak is now liable for allowing all of us access without permission. (And no doubt we’ll all be prosecuted in turn.)
Who’s the lowest, the lawyers or the judges who allow this kind of $hit to go on?
Maybe they’re related to the bridezilla lawyer
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=14139
#19 ? To my knowledge there is no Mozilla add-on to circumvent the Great Chinese Firewall.
Cheers
#32 – TIHZ_HO
Have you tried FoxyProxy with the TOR router?
Quote from their user agreement:
We do permit search engines to access our website for purposes of indexing search results.
but if we look at their HTML:
< 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” >
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t these lines only used for search indexing!?! Also, they should be embarrassed by their code. The lack of a quotation mark after “advocate and legal counsel.” really messes up the next tag. And they are “internet attorneys” but just one is an “interent attorney”.
This is just a marketing ploy by the web site to make them look “Internet Savvy” to potential clients. It is bullshit and unenforceable. Anyone with the slightest bit of common law knowledge knows that.