Dozier Internet Law: Click View | Page Source, Break Copyright Law

Dozier Internet Law, fresh from costing SecureComputer one million dollars, forcing Cuppy’s Coffee to get a P.R. firm, and making life miserable for DirectBuy, now takes on its latest enemy:

View Source

That’s right! Boing Boing, the biggest website to pay attention to Dozier yet (it’s the number three blog on the planet) enters the fray. Here’s the best part of the user agreement from John Dozier’s company 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.

Their website downloads code to your computer, but you can’t even examine the functions that it runs. And of course, Dozier’s website doesn’t ask you for permission before executing its super-secret javascript.

In the comments, Keithirwin accuses Dozier Internet Law of stealing the code of others, and using the user agreement to try to keep this secret. What does the term Dozier Internet Law and plagiarism seem so familiar?

More information is available at Public Citizen‘s blog

4 thoughts on “Dozier Internet Law: Click View | Page Source, Break Copyright Law”

  1. It certainly is weird.

    Computer code can be declarative or procedural. Declarative code merely describes something — what a page should look like, or what data should be returned. Procedural code does something. Windows, Office, and Google Maps have plenty of procedural code, because they all do a lot.

    Dozier's website uses javascript and html, so it contains both procedural and declarative code. Now, that's reasonable — webpages are increasingly complicated, and many of the features are invisible to most users.

    But the idea that one would execute both types of code on a user's machine, both the user has allowed it, while at the same time prohibiting the user from examining the code, is bizarre.

  2. There are attorneys who may be real bottom feeders. Now that doesn’t mean that all attorneys are bad. But every profession has some questionable characters.

    Personally I think that John Dozier, SUPER Bull…. Dozier may be a very small dog with a very loud bark. He made the mistake of crossing swords with the professional inventor community and ended up with far more than he bargained for. See: http://www.CyberTrailLawyer-SUCKS.com.

    It has been nearly a year and Super Bull… Lawyer John Dozier seems to be a bit helpless. If he tries to bully us again we will castrate the Bull…. lawyer by having all those Dozier SUCKS domains and more go live.

    By the way, we are looking for volunteer programmers to create more exciting content for Bull…. Dozier. If you want to help contact me at: RJR @ InvEd.org.

    Ronald J. Riley,

    Speaking only on my own behalf.
    Affiliations:
    President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
    Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
    Senior Fellow – http://www.patentPolicy.org
    President – Alliance for American Innovation
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
    Washington, DC
    Direct (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 9 pm EST.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>