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

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Dozier Spam Bot Attacks tdaxp?

Two strange messages (I've left them in tact, except for the hyperlink) have appeared in the comments for my posts, Dozier Internet Law harms client's reputation and Did Dozier Internet Law Misrepresent a Federal Judge?."

The first comment reads:

Here is the Dozier Internet Law Blog:

[url redacted by tdaxp]

Frankly, it seems pretty insightful.

and the second is:

I don't know who is right. It looks like it might be Dozier:

[url redacted by tdaxp]

At first blanch, these are merely spam messages. The IPs of the two comments (left with the same nick and email account) are quite different... the 128.241.*.* range resolves to NTT America (a "global IP solutions company"), while the range of to .255.255 resoles to Global Tac, LLC. Global Tac has been implemented in spam messages before. It appears that Global Tac hides behind150 different IP messages to conduct its spam campaigns, so the discrepancy between the IP addresses is smaller than it appears.

Dozier Internet Law is no stranger to spam as a means of advertising - they've long generated spam websites with nonsensical information. Still, escalating this to include spam comments on private blogs comes dangerously close to trespass and hacking.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Did Dozier Internet Law misrepresent a federal judge?

Brendan of I Hate Linux emailed in this disturbing story: Dozier Internet Law got a judge to agree one can copyright a cease-and-desist letter...

... or, maybe not: According to Public Citizen:

The hearing transcript is not online, so we cannot be sure exactly what arguments were conceded, but there is every reason to believe that the judge did NOT reject either the First Amendment or the fair use arguments – he seems to have avoided them by ruling for the one party on whose behalf they were still being pressed by the end of the hearing. Nothing supports Dozier’s claim that the case stands for the proposition that a cease and desist letter is copyrightable, not to speak of the propositions that posting of such letters is neither fair use nor protected by the First Amendment.

I will try to read the PDF of the original decision, and come to my own conclusion.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

The first rule of Dozier Internet Law is - you do not talk about Dozier Internet Law

This is old, but hilarious. I didn't realize that Dozier Internet Law's browserwrap license actually prohibited people from mentioning Dozier Internet Law:

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.

I guess Dozier isn't a fan of Dozier Internet Law Sucks or Dozier Internet Lawsuits, then!

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings - Week 7

Dozier continues to throw cash at spam advertising -- doorway pages, theory pants, and the rest -- in order to prevent googlers from finding out information about the company. Still, the fact that some of the spam pages are very, very low imply that the "newness" of their empty pages wears off quick. Ultimately, John Dozier may only be opening up his company and himself to liability, as these "attorney advertising" pages may eventually turn into sites for adult websites, or other illicit pursuits, if he doesn't keep their registration up to date.

NameThis WeekLast TimeChange
Dozier Internet Law, PC11holds
Dozier Internet Law33holds
Dozier Internet Law44holds
Dozier Internet Law56+1
Dozier Internet Law67+1
Dozier Internet Law Sucks710+3
Ars Techncia88holds
New York Personal Injury Lawyer1015+5
Dozier Internet Law11( - )new
Accidental Blogger1614-2
newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com17( - )new
South Dakota Politics1817-1
Dreaming 5GW1921+2
Phatic Communion2020holds
Blog of M'Gath2119-2
Yahoo! Delicious2323holds
I Hate Linux2424holds

Dropped from rankings: Infomercial Blog (16), Plagiarism Today (18)

Others Receiving Votes: Jim River Report (received votes), Code Prairie (received votes), codeprairie.net (dropped from rankings), Topix (received votes), dEarth dX (received votes), Sphinn, Wordpress (received votes), pubcit.typepad.com (received votes)

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Dozier Internet Law and the language of violence

Considering the pattern unethical, if sometimes hilarious, things to come out of Dozier Internet Law, references to killing shouldn't surprise me. But they still do:

From John W. Dozier, Jr's personal blog:

Dozier Internet Law continues to monitor and evaluate developments in the law of the web. Right now it looks like the laws and decisions are continuing to catch up with the "Wild West" mentality that is so prevalent among the "scofflaws" of the web. It's good to remember that some pioneers get arrows in their backs, I guess.

I've previously analyzed Dozier's nuisance lawsuits as a form of violence at Dreaming 5GW, which led to a reply by curtis at Phatic Communion, but I believe John's words are the first that include reference to direct, life-altering bodily harm.

Weirdly, in an earlier piece, Dozier defined "sadists" bloggers as those who are the first to recommend physical violence. Granted, John didn't recommend physical violence yet... "I guess."

Monday, November 26, 2007

Dozier Theory Pants

As I reported on Jim River Report, Brendan has more on Dozier Internet Law's use of spam advertising. Brendan's post has screenshots of many of the more absorb attempts to increase their google pagerank. Here's the best:

"Sponsored listings" include Dozier Internet Law (We protect online reputations and the intellectual property of business), Earn A Law Degree Online (Accredited Law Degree 100% Online. Bachelors Required. Apply Today!), NY Internet Law Lawyers (Internet law, media, technology, and licensing matters), and Domain Theft? (Don't let someone steal your url. Experienced internet attorney).

Other "related" searches include theory pants, internet law, theory suits, theory jackets, law school, theory sweaters, technology law, law, theory skirts, and business law.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings - Week 6

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings - Week 6

Its hard to find much good to say about Dozier Internet Law. No, seriously. My blog dedicated to the company's cases, Dozier Internet Lawsuits, is stalled because I can only find one case that they won. John, if you're reading this, please comment with a case you won other than Alyssa Linder WIPO complaint.

I know John, or at least someone with the ability to make decisions from the firm, is reading this, because shortly after last weeks' rating, Dozier responded monstrously. (By which I mean, in a big & unethical way.) As reported on I Hate Linux, Dozier appears to be violating Google's terms of service by creating spam "doorway" pages.

Temporarily, the tricks work. Whether Google proceeds to delist Dozier Internet Law, as it has other spammers, remains to be seen. Certainly, Google's intellectual property lawyer is aware of Dozier's past actions. And you can report Dozier's misbehavior to Google, as well.

Interestingly, Dozier's scheme succeeded in pushing off its affiliate advertising page on FindLaw out of the Top 10, and its fluff piece on Vator TV off of the list, entirely.

NameThis WeekLast TimeChange
Dozier Internet Law, PC11holds
cybertriallawyer.com2( + )returns to rankings
Dozier Internet Law3( - )new
Dozier Internet Law4( - )new
Dozier Internet Law6( - )new
Dozier Internet Law7( - )new
Ars Techncia84-4
Dozier Internet Law Sucks106-4
Accidental Blogger1411-3
New York Personal Injury Lawyer1510-5
Infomercial Blog1612-4
South Dakota Politics1713-4
Plagiarism Today185-13
Blog of M'Gath1915-4
Phatic Communion2014-6
Dreaming 5GW2116-5
Yahoo! Delicious2318-5
I Hate Linux2419-5

Others Receiving Votes: Jim River Report (23), Topix (20), Code Prairie (24), dEarth dX (received votes), Wordpress (received votes), pubcit.typepad.com (received votes)

Dropped from Rankings Topix (20), Vator TV (22), Jim River Report(23), Code Prairie (24), codeprairie.net (25)

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings - Week 5

This week's poll, like most BCS weekly polls this year, is anything but stable. Five pages dropped out of the top 15, including 3 of the top 15, and including --- #2 ranked cybertriallawyer.com. While Dozier's main page is still #1, of course, the formerly second place copyright notice has dropped off the face of the world.

NameThis WeekLast TimeChange
Dozier Internet Law, PC11holds
Ars Techncia45+1
Plagiarism Today56+1
Dozier Internet Law Sucks614+8
New York Personal Injury Lawyer109-1
Accidental Blogger1111holds
Infomercial Blog12( - )new
South Dakota Politics1317+4
Phatic Communion1420+6
Blog of M'Gath1518+3
Dreaming 5GW1615-1
Yahoo! Delicious1819+1
I Hate Linux1924+5
Topix20( + )returns to rankings
Vator TV22( - )new
Jim River Report2322-1
Code Prairie24( + )returns to rankings
codeprairie.net25( + )previously received votes

Others Receiving Votes: Wordpress (previously ranked), dEarth dX, pubcit.typepad.com (previously ranked)

Dropped from Rankings: cybertriallawyer.com (2), Gamespot (10), Something Awful (12), del.icio.us (21), jimriverreport.com (23)

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Dozier in the News

Three stories on Dozier Internet Law. In both cases I won't link to any Dozier properties, per their terms of use. (I apologize for the inconvenience this might case.)

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?

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings - Week 4

This week's poll is a tale of stability. Of the top 10 entry, only two are not holds. The biggest gainer is Plagiarism Today, which is apparently enjoying the popularity of a mention on Writing Thoughts. "PT" jumps 7 points to #6, while Blog of M'Gath gives way, falling 13 spaces to #18. Ars Technica is the other mover in the Top 12, jumping one position to #5.

Only one entry fell out of the Top 25: Jown W Dozier Jr's blog. A discussion thread from Something Awful takes old #23 Dozier's place and then some, standing tall at #12.

Because there are now only 3 Dozier-affiliated sites in the Top 25 (down from 4 in Weeks 3 and 2, and 7 in Week 1), only three pages are included in the "Others receiving votes" category. Of those three, one had dropped from the rankings last week, while the others received votes in the previous round.

NameThis WeekLast TimeChange
Dozier Internet Law, PC11holds
Ars Techncia56+1
Plagiarism Today613+7
New York Personal Injury Lawyer99holds
Accidental Blogger1112+1
Something Awful12( - )new
Dozier Internet Law Sucks1414holds
Dreaming 5GW1518+3
South Dakota Politics1717holds
Blog of M'Gath518-13
Yahoo! Delicious1915-4
Phatic Communion2020holds
Jim River Report2221-1
I Hate Linux2424holds

Others Receiving Votes: Topix (dropped from rankings), Public Citizen Litigation Group (received votes), Code Prairie (received votes)

Dropped From Rankings: John W Dozier Jr

1 2 3 4 5 Next