Tag Archives: john dozier

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.”

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?

Dozier Internet Law, PC: Give us seven million dollars. Stop laughing.

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.

"Scofflaw Bloggers:" The Dozier Taxonomy of Wicked Netizens

Dozier Internet Law is a “cyber law firm”that specializes in litigation related to the internet. For background, see the Cuppy’s Coffee and DirectBuy case studies. However, as “cyber lawyers” the guys at Dozier clearly pay a lot of attention to the internet, as well.

While John Dozier has a blog, he rarely updates it. Instead, he appears to use his company’s website to pen “news” entries. John’s last message allowed us to link to it. The current one, titled “Scofflaw Bloggers,” does not have such a “yes you may link to this page” notice. Therefore, links throughout this post to not go to any of John’s websites, out of respect for him, but rather other sources of information about the company.

“Scofflaw Bloggers” provides a taxonomy of “persona[e] and motivation[s]” that have “arisen and infiltrated the mainstream blogosphere” since CDA SS 230. The post appears to be in reaction to criticism of Dozier from internet news sources (Ars Technica, Boing Boing, Patry, Esq, Public Citizen, Slashdot, Turkewitz, Esq, etc.). The ten types, a brief quote from Dozier’s descriptions, the qualities described, and a commentary as to whether they fit me are included below.

Are you a scofflaw blogger? Take the test by googling Dozier Scofflaw Bloggers and find out …

  • Name: Mis-Leader

    Description: “This blogger has a hidden agenda, but he just makes it sound like he is a totally objective commentator.”


    • Protects his advertisers
    • Has conflict of interest
    • Appears authoritative

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I’d like to think this blog appears to be respectable, but I have no advertisers and have only received a couple of books and a couple interesting rl conversations out of it.

  • Name: Criminal

    Description: “Career criminals, no less”


    • $0.5M/year pay-offs
    • Guard dogs surround compound
    • Highly effective operational plan

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I eat Ramen way too often to earn six figures, or to have a compound,

  • Name: Bankrupt

    Description: “This is usually not a smart guy”


    • No money
    • No assets
    • No prospects for work

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I have to say, the very qualities which make me not a “criminal” appear to make me “bankrupt.” (I hope I am a smart guy, however.)

  • Name: Sadist

    Description: “most likely to be the one that starts recommending direct physical violence against the exeutives of a company”


    • Escalates attacks rapidly
    • Uses his real name
    • Enjoys inflicting pain

    Does it fit tdaxp?: Well, I am in my fifth year of graduate school, but that would make me a masochist, not a sadist. I blog pseudo-anonymously and haven’t recommended direct physical violence yet, however, so this doesn’t quite conform

  • Name: Rookie

    Description: “just kids having fun as the hormones kick in”


    • Mimic adult conversation
    • Spell “ROI” as “RIO”
    • Can be utterly immature

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I like to use big words and misspell short ones, but I’m rarely charged with immaturity. No only 2 for 3 (hopefully!)

  • Name: Nerd

    Description: “scared to talk with a girl”


    • no principles involved
    • posts are intelligent and have face validity
    • cowers once identified

    Does it fit tdaxp?: Hmmm… certainly this blog looks smart, but tends to a coherent aesthetic-politico-religious framework (the old tagline of tdaxp was “Beauty, Victory, God”). I guess the test will be if tdaxp folds up shop once someone calls me a nerd. (I’ve kept going through death threats, but those are adreneline-boosting, I guess.)

  • Name: Alien

    Description: “from overseas”


    • Non US- resident
    • Works with criminals
    • Sometimes nabbed by the FBI in Turkey

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I’m an American, don’t know anyone with guard dogs surrounding his compound, have no plans of visiting Turkey, and no plans of evading the FBI there.

  • Name: Druggie

    Description: “during the day this blogger is a normal guy”


    • Suffers from amnesia
    • Substance abuser
    • “Hooks up” on the net

    Does it fit tdaxp?: I don’t rember forgetting (but then how would I??), drink modesty (but isn’t that how it starts??) and already hooked up with my knife (but what I convert to a polygamic faith??)

  • Name: Pickpocket

    Description: “enjoys attacking defenseless people”


    • Steals copyrighted material
    • Extracts revenues from ads
    • Uses meta tags

    Does it fit tdaxp?: “Pickpocket” appears to be a combination of “Criminal” and Sadist,” making both necessary conditions for pickpockethood.

  • Name:Wacko

    Description: “Most sophisticated business people immediately view the post as a ‘nut case'”


    • Begins with fair criticism
    • Invests time into he criticism
    • Multiple web properties

    Does it fit tdaxp?: Well.. maybe

    I have multiple web properties. Besides tdaxp, my South Dakota focused news aggregator is covering the story, and using blospirit’s point-and-click interface I began Dozier Internet Lawsuits to try to keep tabs on the company. (I only have two posts, because I would like any record to be even-handed, and I’ve been able to identify only one Dozier victory and many defeats.) Additionally, I use del.icio.us social bookmarks, so there’s that, too.

    I have spent time on this. Part of the reason is that I dislike censorship, and another (less noble) is that I have empty time I want to fill. (Now, for example, I am riding with my wife on I-80 through scenic if empty western Illinois.)

    My criticism has been fair. Again, check out my description of the DirectBuy case, and the earlier Franchise Time article on Cuppy’s Coffee. While I have more pointed possibilities as well, such as questioning the motive Dozier attorney Donald Morris or Dozier’s history of disrespecting online privacy, I immediately received positive feedback on both topics.

I think John Dozier called me a Wacko.

Can anyone at Dozier confirm that?