The only non-boring part of this news is that Twitter may help Ryan Gibbs sue tweeters!
Powered by Twitter Tools
So I ordered flowers with guaranteed-delivery with ProFlowers. They never arrived.
Many tweets imply I am not the only one to be very disappointed
Here are some more links about ProFlowers
One thing is for sure: I regret ordering from ProFlowers!
Dozier Internet Law isn’t the only country out to sue critics on the internet: PublishAmerica has sued publisher-watchdog site Preditors and Editors. Unfortunately, in the American legal system, it’s often so expensive to defend against nonsensical suits that many victims fold after being SLAPPED (victim of a strategic lawsuit against public participation).
Here’s to Preditors and Editors, for standing up for consumers, the market, and free speech!
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?
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.
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
What is going on?
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.
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.