Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Law Firm Claims Copyright on View of HTML Source

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the thinking-this-is-a-publicity-stunt dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 601

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.'"

cancel ×

601 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

o snap (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032697)



Official Site of Inventor-Link LLC - Your Link to Success for Your Invention, Idea, or Patent.

[inventor-link.com]
       
                [inventor-link.com] [inventor-link.com] [inventor-link.com] [inventor-link.com] [inventor-link.com] [inventor-link.com]

                       


                       


                       

success
               
                       


               
                       



                       



"Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success."

  Thomas Edison

  Lightbulb

"The thing about inventing is that it is a continual and continuos process, and it is fluid. Inventions generate further inventions. In fact, that is where most inventions come from. They very rarely come out of nothinig."

  James Dyson

  Dyson Hoover

"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said: 'you can't do this'."

  Spence Silver

  3M Post-It Notes


                       




                        Finally, Proven Strategies to Get

Your Idea or Invention Into the Market Now!
                       

The excitement of conceiving a new invention can often blind good reason. New inventors are easily consumed by visions of super yachts and exotic sports cars all resulting from
their "eureka" moment.

The facts, however, paint a different picture. Over 98% of all inventors fail to earn more than they have spent on their idea. With such odds, it would behoove a new inventor to diligently assess their invention, and their strategy before committing significant amounts of time or money to their concept.

Do your homework

A good starting point for any new idea is to simply confirm that it is in fact a new idea. Years ago this was a mammoth task which either required the services of a skilled patent searcher, or spending numerous hours at a designated patent repository sifting through thousands of patent abstracts.

Though it is difficult to match the skills of one who is well trained in searching for relevant patents, with today's technology there are a number of resources available free to enable an inventor to independently make a preliminary search oftheir idea. [uspto.gov]

The United States Patent Office offers a free online search tool.
Some, however, may find it easier to use the patent search tool now available through Google [google.com] . Whatever tool used, it is an easy and essential step that should not be overlooked.

Should you be unable to locate any patents that reflect the elements of your invention, do not assume someone else has not already conceived of the idea. In some cases new products are brought to the market with no patent protection at all. Hence, it isnot possible to locate them in a patent search. Further research may be necessary to determine if the idea is already in the market.

Reduce your idea to practice

It is one thing to have an idea, it is quite another to "reduce it to practice". This principle often evades new inventors. They may feel that if they have the "idea" that is enough.

This is simply not the case. An inventor must understand how to create and operate their new invention. If they are unable to do this, or do not enlist the assistance of others to do this, they have not reduced their idea to practice.

For example, an inventor may have an idea for a toaster that never burns toast. A fine idea indeed, but how will this be reduced to practice; will electronic sensors be developed to monitor the surface of the toast? If so, have the "sensors" been developed? Do they work? Have they been tested? Are the sensors economically viable to produce? Will the "sensors" withstand the heat generated by the toaster? Will the market buy such toasters?

Questions of this nature involve reducing an idea to practice. Though often ignored, it is an essential activity in the development
of a new product. Successful and experienced inventors intimately understand this point.

Don't fall in love with your idea

Creating an emotional attachment to an object, or the mere thought of one, can contribute to errors in judgment. Bringing a new idea to the market requires a tremendous amount of persistence. However, that persistence must be anchored by sound reason and intelligent analysis.

Namely, a firm grip on the market potential of the given idea, and the likelihood of penetrating that market. Again, this is a process the requires homework on the part of the inventor. This may be accomplished independently, or an inventor may choose to enlist the services of a qualified firm for assistance.

Know where to go for inventor help

United States Patent & Trademark Office [uspto.gov]

                       

European Patent Office [epo.co.at]

                       

International Organization for Standardization [www.iso.ch]

                       

Consumer [cpsc.gov]
Product & Safety Commission
                       

Dun & Bradstreet [dnb.com]

                       

Department of Commerce [commerce.gov]

                       

© Copyright2006 Inventor-link LLC. All Rights Reserved.
               
                       

Privacy and User Agreement

_uacct = "UA-1064022-1";
urchinTracker();

oblig. (5, Funny)

niteice (793961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032701)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

:o

dynamic html (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032737)

have not they heard about dynamic html ?

Cache-Control: no-render (5, Funny)

jasonwea (598696) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032703)

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

Re:Cache-Control: no-render (3, Insightful)

Inverted Intellect (950622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032939)

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.

If you don't want anyone to view (4, Insightful)

WebHostingGuy (825421) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032705)

then don't publish it online.

Alternatively (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032777)

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

Re:If you don't want anyone to view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032815)

Indeed. Is this entrapment, or is that only when cops do it?

What do you charge drug dealers with -- attempt to distribute?

Re:If you don't want anyone to view (3, Interesting)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032969)

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

The devil made me do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033121)

I have to post anonymously in order to confess that I copied the paragraph from their precious EULA and their unlinkable URL to Vincent Flanders' site: Web Pages That Suck: http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/ [webpagesthatsuck.com]

Authorize my foot in your asses. (5, Funny)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032707)

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

Smells good.

Hey everyone! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032709)

Look at me, first post!

Invalid HTML (5, Insightful)

alanw (1822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032717)

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

Better still: (4, Interesting)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032887)

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:Invalid HTML (4, Insightful)

TDyl (862130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032907)

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

they seem a bit stressed (5, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032721)

i think they just need to get laid REALLY bad.

Re:they seem a bit stressed (4, Funny)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032913)

why would a bad lay help?

Well then (1)

katterjohn (726348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032723)

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

Re:Well then (3, Funny)

eosp (885380) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032963)

So you're going to rewrite them in Perl?

Content? (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032727)

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? (2, Informative)

Typoboy (61087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032787)

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? (4, Interesting)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033133)

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? (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033145)

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.

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032743)

If my site had HTML this horrid [w3.org] , I wouldn't want people to look at it either.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032877)

WTF is a CSACTION, anyway??

"security through obscurity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032747)

I'll bet it's bad code.

Well then ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032749)

I think I'll copyright my HTTP requests too. Their web server better not look at them!

Useless (2, Insightful)

nsebban (513339) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032765)

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

Re:Useless (2, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032841)

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... (4, Informative)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032771)

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

You're in violation (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032867)

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

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (2, Funny)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032889)

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

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (5, Funny)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032901)

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.. (1)

Golden Section (961595) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032909)

Dimwits on zealous inalienable electronic rights

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032911)

Didn't you read their copyright notice? You're a thief!

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. We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission, except that you must maintain the link in our Copyright Infringement Warning Button as it is designed. 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.
You used their name without permission! You said it! Theif!

Oh no! I copied part of their website! I'm a thief too!

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032945)

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. [cybertriallawyer.com] There are other gems in there, too - read and enjoy!

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

I smell a slashdotting coming on (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033013)

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/ [cybertriallawyer.com] Is that enough to qualify as fair use? Maybe you should go on over and find out.

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033027)

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 [wikipedia.org] made to promote an upcoming video game or other entertainment product?? The site is so utterly outrageous, I wouldn't be even remotely surprised...

Re:For those who are too lazy to do some digging.. (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033063)

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 no visiting either? (5, Insightful)

john_is_war (310751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032773)

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.

oh and look! (1)

olele (785597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033149)

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

Oops... Too Late (4, Interesting)

excelblue (739986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032775)

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?

Guilty? No. (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032857)

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.

Re:Guilty? No. (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033127)

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.

Is viewing the DOM allowed (1)

rminsk (831757) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032779)

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

I own this! (2, Funny)

nexxuz (895394) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032783)

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 (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032799)

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 (2, Funny)

Feyr (449684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032879)

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

Re:Suggested technical fix (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033105)

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 (2, Funny)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033111)

&;ltanalcopyright

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

I'm 'wget' - come arrest me! (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032803)

% cd cybermorans
% 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! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033003)

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

This is why law needs a "duh" clause (4, Informative)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032819)

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 (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032925)

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 (1)

ekimd (968058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033011)

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

What if... (1)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032823)

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 need of a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032825)

This reminds me of the idiots [dontlink.com] that claim it is illegal to link to their sites. Some people just have no business having websites.

In other words... (4, Funny)

kaan (88626) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032843)

All our source are belong to us.

Standard browser (1)

roemcke (612429) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032853)

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

Permit my ass (1)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032855)

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.

Apropo legal responce (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032859)

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 (1)

TDyl (862130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033113)

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

Re:Apropo legal responce (1)

paulmac84 (682014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033155)

I think you're looking for Arkell v Pressdram [wikipedia.org]

Generated by a Tool for Tools (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032869)

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

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 (1)

ritalinvillain (780156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033101)

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

How can they tell that I read their html... (1)

Howard Canonymouse (1140487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032875)

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

Re:How can they tell that I read their html... (1)

damicatz (711271) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032903)



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.

Bah! (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032893)

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?

They own all the code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21032905)

On their homepage they have a Youtube video, they do not own the Youtube player or the code for it. Youtube should remove their video and sue them for falsely claiming to own their code.

Can copyright.... (1)

machinelou (1119861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032917)

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

Re:Can copyright.... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033043)

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.

Unfortunately yes (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033139)

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.

connect the dots (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032923)

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

In Soviet Russia (1)

ekimd (968058) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032929)

all HTML source is copyright the government.

Headers (1)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032931)

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... (3, Interesting)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032933)

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

the hits keep on coming. (1)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032935)

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......

That`s me screwed then ! (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032957)

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 (5, Funny)

RichMan (8097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032961)

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 [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.
--

violation of gpl? (1)

H310iSe (249662) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032967)

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? (1)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032971)

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.

advertising (4, Insightful)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21032973)

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.

Interesting legal question (3, Interesting)

sigmabody (1099541) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033005)

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?

They are missing the point..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033007)

Copyright gives you the right to COPY or not. If they don't want you to VIEW their internet code, maybe they shouldn't have put it out on the INTERNET. Duh. The entire point of copyright is so people can view the work, without you losing rights to it.

Next website I do... (3, Funny)

Perseid (660451) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033009)

"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."

Law Firm (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033019)

They obviously don't have enough to do.

But I use Lynx... (1)

Endloser (1170279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033023)

Do they consider it copyright infringement if my browser never even renders the page? ID 10 T

AAAAnnnd further more... (1)

scooviduvoctagon (801935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033031)

... 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.

The code wasn't generated by a person, ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033045)

The code appears to have been generated by Adobe GoLive. Copyright protects creative work. The creative step is necessary. Non-creative work is not protected. Machine generated code is in no way creative. The code can't plausibly be copyrighted unless some human being applied some creativity to generating it. These guys are bozos.

I also note that they try to pull a 'click through' on us. Their 'agreement' says you agree to certain conditions in order to read their website. Too bad I didn't read it until after I looked at the source code. Maybe I didn't understand, I don't speak English so good ...

I'm guessing that they don't actually expect people to adhere to their 'agreement'. This is probably some kind of ploy to keep us from using their stuff against them in court.

just html? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033049)

Is the javascript still up for grabs?

Isn't viewing the site just interpreting source? (1)

brainchill (611679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033051)

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 (2, Insightful)

bdemchak (1099961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033055)

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!?

So (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033065)

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.

I do not permit them to... (1)

Boomer_Zz (548219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033071)

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

Their HTML code revealed (5, Funny)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033077)

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>

woo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033079)

User Agreement/Privacy Policy By using our website, you agree to the following: At Dozier Internet Law, P.C. we do not simply post a "legal sounding" user agreement. That is because we customize every one of our user agreements to fit the specific needs of our clients, and we do the same with our website. 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. The new matter submission form includes some personally identifiable information. This information is for internal use only and is not shared with third parties. Although we have very high levels of security in place, we also are intimately familiar with the "hacking" industry. With our somewhat unique perspective, we are simply not comfortable exposing highly confidential and proprietary client information online. Since we do not use a private area, this user agreement is customized to a website that is more focused on providing legal and ethical disclosures. 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. We maintain records of IP addresses and other information contained in log files and new client matter submission forms. We do so in order to identify any parties that are abusing or misusing our website, or infringing on our intellectual property by making unauthorized copies of our website, and also for identifying advertising improprieties by competitors. We also use this information to track, dissect, and analyze sales and marketing programs for internal business purposes in order to maximize our online advertising efforts and keep our operating costs to a minimum. Some of the IP information is automatically shared with Google Analytics to analyze a broad range of information, but the analytics are exclusively for our internal use to better manage the website experience for our visitors and evaluate advertising strategies and tactics (no personally indentifiable information is shared with Google or a third party). That way Dozier Internet Law, P.C. can operate efficiently and minimize the need for fee increases. While we would like to be able to offer free legal advice and answer all of the questions you have about the law of the Internet, we are inundated each day with requests and inquiries concerning a broad range of legal issues on the Internet. We do try to promptly respond to every prospective client that is actually considering retaining an Internet law specialist. Whether we provide a quick response, or are unable to get back with you at all, please understand that we are not providing any legal advice to you and no attorney/client relationship exists until we have mutually entered into a written legal retainer agreement. In addition, you should not rely on any information on this website as legal advice, and DOZIER INTERNET LAW, PC DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE, AND WE FURTHER DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, RELATING TO THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WARNING BUTTON AND RELATED LINK TO OUR SITE. Some states may not permit the waiver of implied warranties under certain circumstances. 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. In addition, by using our site, and by sending any communication to us or by contacting us, you acknowledge that any information shared with us will not be used by you as a basis to disqualify any attorney with our firm or our law firm from any matter. You will see on the site specific or general examples of cases or factual and legal situations. A legal ethics requirement is that we state the following: CASE RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE, AND PRIOR CASE RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE A SIMILAR RESULT IN FUTURE CASES. 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. 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. We also do not allow any links to our site without our express permission, except that you must maintain the link in our Copyright Infringement Warning Button as it is designed. 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. You are authorized to use the Copyright Infringement Warning Button we provide, but you agree this permission can be cancelled at any time, within our sole and independent discretion. Please understand that we regularly monitor the major search engines and conduct searches to identify those individuals and companies that are using our trade name in order to attract business to their own website in which they have pecuniary and economic interests. Dozier Internet Law, P.C. obviously has the capability to immediately react to such misappropriation, oftentimes resulting in very significant financial exposure for the infringer. You are not authorized to use our name, or any derivative of it. In other words, do not put our law firm on your website suggesting you have an attorney/client relationship with us without our permission. If we do represent you, please ask us before doing so and we will consider the matter. 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. 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. Dozier Internet Law, P.C. does not direct our website to children under thirteen (13) years of age. Individuals under eighteen (18) years of age should consult with their parent or guardian about the use of this website. It is impossible to guarantee or warrant the accuracy of information on this site since the technology and Internet world both evolve quickly, and laws and interpretations change at an every increasing pace. Of course, we do not sell any of the information collected on our website. Make sure that you don't just read through this website and rely on what it says since we expressly disclaim all liability with respect to your actions taken, or not taken, based on the contents of this website. In closing, privacy and security are both very important to us. We do treat all information provided to us with care and discretion, and we take a very proactive approach to make sure that the information is not misused. Dozier Internet Law, P.C. updates its website on a regular basis. Likewise, we make changes to our user agreement on a regular basis also. When we change the user agreement it will be posted on the website and will apply to all users of our website from that day forward without any additional notice. If you have any questions concerning this website or our law firm please use the "contact us" section and call us.

This post is copyrighted (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21033091)

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!

Interestin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21033147)

Since the website was designed using Adobe GoLive!, I would imagine their HTML is not their own property - in fact it was generated using Adobe's product. So how can they lay claim to something they didn't actually genuinely create? Haha...

73DX
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?