Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The first is to note that Dozier has a new spam (bulk marketing) website out, hosted by Vator.tv. The lack of originality is striking, even for an online properties. At random, I chose one of the lines of text from the page:
company in 1994, when there were reportedly less than 1,000 websites in the
searched for it in quotes, and sure enough, came back from a google for Dozier's homepage.
The second story consists of John Dozier's latest blog post. As Greg of Public Citizen commented privately to me, John must really hate bloggers. Here's an excerpt from his post:
[Journalists] are being lumped in with the bloggers in legislation before Congress that would create a bar to requiring the disclosure of confidential sources. And the bill is likely to fail, frankly, based on the inability of the journalists to explain to Congress how to draw a line between real journalists and the blogosphere. On the one hand, Congress is ready to protect confidential sources for journalists. On the other hand, extending such a privilege to the blogosphere (which by definition includes the mobosphere of miscreants and scofflaws) is unpalatable to Congress....
Why is including bloggers such a big deal? Because bloggers will publish information that is defamatory or otherwise inappropriate or illegal, and do so with claimed false attribution to a third party, and then claim privilege when asked the source. Check out the Dozier Internet Law Blogger Defamation Issues for more insight on blogger defamation.
Certainly John's concern about innacurate journalism is valid -- regardless of the medium. Just last night, TMZ broke another story of deceptive reporting by CNN. And I imagine that I would disagree with Greg of PubCit about how much legal protection reporters should have in protecting sources. Still, I am wondering what definition of the blogosphere he is using...
The last story is inspired by a pre-posting discussion I had with Brendan of I Hate Linux. I gave Brendan the link to the Dozier blog post, and he replied that I may be violating Dozier's term of use by even privately sharing the link. I answered that I wasn't sure. So John Dozier... may people mention the URLs of your posts to each other in private, or is that discouraged, too?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Dozier Internet Law, PC, those legal beagles in charge of the Cuppy's Coffee and DirectBuy catastrophes, didn't start there.
Thanks to dEarth / dx, I learned about their attempt to get seven million dollars from a website for criticizing "Manchester Who's Who."
From the article that inspired the lawsuit:
She asked, “Will you be using your membership for networking or credibility?”
I explained that I would probably be using it for both. “Being I high school drop-out, I have always had to struggle with public opinion on my credibility…”
$7,000,000. Hahaha. That's even better that "Bull," "Cyber Lawyer," or "Super Lawyer."
God bless you, John "$7,000,000" Dozier. You bring the smile to the face of everyone you threaten.
Friday, October 26, 2007
When Informercial Scams was SLAPP'd by Dozier Internet Law, they contacted Public Citizen and fought back. But was GameSpot similarly targeted? And did they cave?
The mystery comes from the current #11 result for Dozier Internet Law, titled "GameSpot: Note to Dozier Internet Law: Don't screw with ⁄." Bizarrely, this high-ranking post reads:
This user is banned
However, google cache reveals this text (emphasis original):
Those guys (douchebags) everyone loves to hate at cybertriallaywers.com have just done something incredibly stupid...they've tried to claim copyright on their website's HTML. Fresh off their embarassment at the hands of Public Citizen it was found out that in their website's EULA they assert copyright over their website's HTML.
Thats not the funny part though, that comes in the form of the comments on the Slashdot article about it.
Within the first handful of comments the HTML source had already been reproduced in full, analysed, found to be invalid HTML, oh and apparently that it violates copyright itself in at least two different ways.
In otherwords I would like to modify slightly that old saying, "Don't fight the internet." Don't fight slashdot, you will lose and be humiliated in the process.
By Runningflame570 -- GameSpot
Posted Oct 18, 2007 10:09 pm PT
So did Dozier get to a description of a Slashdot article, but not the article itself? Did Gamespot ban the user and delete the post for another reason?
What is going on?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
At http://www.cybertriallawyer-sucks.com/, is the latest inivtation for Dozier Internet Law to test it's strange interpretation of free speech rights. While not as sublte as similar efforts by Public Citizen, I Hate Linux, or whatithink, or as intellectual as Bill Patry (Google's copyright big-wig)'s take, the site is nonetheless another follow-up to Dozier's strange lawsuits on behalf of DirectBuy and Inventor-Link.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Dozier Internet Law (a firm that engages in strategic lawsuits against public participation -- see case studies on Cuppy's Coffee, DirectBuy, and Inventor-Link) is attempting to prevent users from examining code that Dozier executes on their machines. Whatithink examines that code, and finds something frightening:
It gets better! Oh does it get better. The site was built using a program called Zope. Whoever built the Dozier Internet Law website left a whole lot of stuff turned on that they should not have - including the ability for anyone to upload files to the site. Of course, the Internet being the Internet, a whole lot of stuff has ended up on the Dozier Internet Law website that shouldn’t be there, including copyrighted works. So now Dozier Internet Law are breaking copyright law by making these copyright works available for download.
Whatithink focuses on Dozier's making available copyrighted works. But as I wrote in the comments:
I'm more worired about the potential for Dozier's website to become a tangent in the spread of viruses. Critics of Dozier have had their machines mysetriously infected. Whether hacking machines is considered ethical by Dozier or not, or whether they do it or not, the fact that Dozier's website is so "hack-friendly" makes me reticent about visiting it in the future
Whatithink also gives a screenshot of his HTML debugging program, showing how he found various warnings and critical errors generated by Dozier's descriptive web code.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Dozier, J.W., Jr. (2005). Nastrygrams: Don't let a "legal letter" ruin your day. Practical Ecommerce, page 21, November 2005.
An important question to ask about the DirectBuy threat letter (written by attorney Donald Morris of Dozier Internet Law) is this: is it serious. Is DirectBuy perhaps pulling our leg? Is Dozier Internet Law misuing cease-and-desist letters to have a chuckle?
Here to answer the question: John Dozier, President of Dozier Internet Law, P.C. John gives several criteria to help determine whether that or not you should "ignore the notice":
- First, take a took at who wrote the letter
Conclusion: the DirectBuy threat letter is written by a law firm that does not emphasize American law. As most readers of this blog are Americans, Dozier's letters are quite possibly irrelevent.
- Second, review the content of the demand letter in detail
Does it have attachments and details showing significant effort invested in composing the letter and evaluating the merits of the claim being asserted?
Conclusion: No. Dozier Internet Law uses a standard template to generate cease-and-desist letters.
- Third, who is complaining about your conduct
Be particularly careful in dealing with any communications from competitors because this seems to be the most likely source of aggressive litigation
Conclusion, DirectBuy is suing a consumer information site, and not a competitor.
- Fourth, if you have not made much money from the alleged misconduct, it is less likely to become a real issue than if you have been making a lot of money.
If the use of such intellectual property was highly profitable, beware and be prepared because you are more likely to get sued.
The individual DirectBuy is suing a blogger who operates on a shoe-string, a "highly profitable" operation is unlikely.
Grand Conclusion: According to John's "general observations and not [his] legal advice," don't "cancel that tee time."
How not to write a cease-and-desist letter: Comparing the Dozier Internet Law threat letters against InfomercialScams and InvendorEd
Do you want to have your reputation ruined, pay a million dollar fine, and in general tick everyone off? If so, Dozier Internet Law is the law firm for you! But if the thought of being in the presence of "Super Lawyer" John "Bull" Dozier is too intimidating, you can examine the form that Dozier seems to use to wreck their clients. (Just note that Dozier thinks US law likely will not govern the matter!
Our friend Donald E. Morris of Dozier Internet Law (presumably not a "super-lawyer" like his boss, John W. Dozier, Jr.,) is at it again. After threatening Infomercial Scams over its warnings against DirectBuy, now DonJohn is attacking Inventor Ed for statements on Inventor-Link.
This post compares the DirectBuy and Inventor-Link threat letters. The sections below are in order, except for "Legitimate Free Speech" which floats between the letters.
Section: "Please be advised"
Please be advised that our firm has been retained by DirectBuy, Inc. to investigate and take legal action against you for the series of unwarranted and defamatory attacks against it made by you and your visitors on your various websites. Specifically, these websites are www.infomercialblog.com, www.infomercialratings.com, and www.infomercialscams.com.
Please be advised that our firm has been retained by Inventor-Link, LLC to investigate and take legal action against you for engaging in the following activities (1) defamation of our client, (2) tortious (sic) interference with our client’s business; and (3) violation of our client’s website User Agreement.
Monday, October 15, 2007
If you had any doubt about the good sense of Dozier Internet Law, read this comment.
Here's the first paragraph:
First, you seem to think that US law will govern this copyright matter. It likely will not.
While I'm glad that "John W. Dozier Jr, Esq." agrees that it's unlikely that an American court will give a serious hearing to his claims, John's threats of extra-legal actions are chilling. Not just in the chilling sense. But in the virus sense.
No one asked that anti-Cuppy’s postings be removed from Blue Mau Mau, said Don Sniegowski, who started the franchise blogsite Blue Mau Mau in Salt Lake City in November, 2005. But at about the same time, “someone inserted a malicious piece of software into our program, which took down our entire Web site for a 12-hour period and kept it going on and off for a few days,” he said. Sniegowski told Franchise Times this summer that he still doesn’t know who planted the software.
The same thread includes a post by Ronald Riley of Inventor Ed. How did Inventor Ed get involved in the subject?
They've been SLAPP'd by Dozier, too!
Another day, another round of Dozier Internet Law links. (As always, check out the preliminary case study for background.)
Simple Justice's "Practical Blawgosphere: The Dozier Demand Scam" is a must read. Joining many other lawyers (Greg Beck, Andrew Bluestone, William Patry, Eric Turkewitz etc.), SJ's Scott Greenfield sees through Dozier's poor arguments:
But Dozier added a new twist that elevated him to new heights of blawgosphere ridicule. He claimed that his cease and desist letter was itself copyrighted, and therefore directed Public Citizen not to publish the letter itself on the internet. So naturally, that's exactly what they did.
Greenfield also addresses the question of whether their mangling of the DirectBuy case is scheme to gain attention at the expense of a client.
The scuttlebutt around the blawgosphere is whether this is a cynical attempt to get the Dozier name out there amongst the blawgs to up their google page rank and get this firm on the radar of people who would otherwise never have heard of it. If so, then Dozier deserved more credit than he's given. But this motive has been met with skepticism since Dozier has been universally viewed as a jerk, and worse yet, a jerk whose actions have hurt his client by alerting as many people as possible to the allegations of scam and discontent.
The subject of publicity brings up a mistake by me... To announce the launch of Dozier Internet Lawsuits, I added it as breaking news over at Jim River Report. Unfortunately the news, which ran yesterday and today... 404'd! Because I transposed the link and title of the story, the "http://dozierinternetlawsuits.blogspirit.com/" appeared as the text and "dozier internet law" functioned as the URL.
I salved this by creating a new page in that location, Jim River Report: Your Window to Dozier Internet Law. I use it to save for posterity the google search results for Dozier Internet Law as of this morning. The result? 18 of the top 25 results are negative.
If this was John "Super Lawyer" Dozier's plan: congrats!