By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« What the Core, and Africa, need from China | HomePage | My opinion is fact, period: On rhetoric, waterboarding, and torture »

Monday, October 29, 20071193683151

The origins of Dozier Internet Law's "intellectual property" Part 1: Javascript Code

My thanks to Freesome to demonstrating how one can view Dozier Internet Law, PC's source code without violating the terms of use. I had been relying on Slashdot's reporting, but I'll use Freesome from now on.

Because Dozier has issues with intellectual honesty, I was curious how much of the javascript (the code that is executed on your computer) is original, and thus can rightfully be copyright by Dozier. In particular, there are four javascript functions defined on the page:

function CSClickReturn
function CSAction(array)
function CSAction2(fct, array)
function MPOpenPopupLite(action)

a quick trip to Google Code Search reveals numerous pages with the first three function. For instance, they are included in this "netscape bugfix code. Dozier does not acknowledge this lifting, however.

The law firm is a bit more honest with "MPOpenPopupLite," where they provide this acknowledgement:

OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

On a standard website, of course, this would be no big deal. But Dozier's pecular terms of use (see a description over at Public Citizen) apperas to claim exclusive rights over other people's work.


Heres something worth pondering.

Assuming the view source could be made illegal. If I look at the version on freesome what then?

I am liable just for visiting the site?
freesome for writing the one line of code.
the webhost for hosting infringing material.

The mind boggles.

Personally I blame evolution for bringing forth legal annoyances such as brains.

Posted by: Pete | Friday, November 09, 2007

Or what if you visually disabled, and rely on a screen reader to parse the text for you? Or a screen reader developer, whose program gives an error on Dozier's error-ridden but unreadable (by diktat) homepage?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, November 12, 2007