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.'"

If you don't want anyone to view

[WebHostingGuy]

then don't publish it online.

Invalid HTML

[alanw]

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

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?

Useless

[nsebban]

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

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.

Re:Invalid HTML

[TDyl]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

Re:If you don't want anyone to view

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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: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:I smell a slashdotting coming on

[webmaster404]

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

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: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: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."

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.

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: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/ [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:They were already successful

[antic]

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

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: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

[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: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 [spectacle.org]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.