This is heading us down a slippery slope where if you have a legitimate complaint about a company, there will be ways to prevent you from telling anyone else what scumbags they are. Next up, write a bad review of a restaurant and get sued. Oops. Sorry. Too late. The ways this can be abused and extended are endless if this stands.
Court Says You Can Copyright A Cease-And-Desist Letter
Back in October, we wrote about a law firm that was claiming a copyright on the cease-and-desist letters it sent out, and insisting that it was a violation to repost them. It’s long been believed that cease-and-desist letters that have no new creative expression and are merely boilerplates are likely not covered by copyright. On top of that, preventing someone from copying a cease-and-desist letter or posting it on their own website seems like a pretty severe First Amendment violation. The group Public Citizen hit back against this law firm’s claims, but surprisingly, a judge has now agreed that you can copyright cease-and-desist letters. The news was announced in a press release by the lawyer in question, who claims this means he can now sue anytime someone posts one of his cease-and-desist letters. He also goes on to slam those who believe free speech means being able to talk about the fact that a company is bullying them.
Here’s the decision as posted on the law firm’s website. (Speaking of which, don’t you dare look at their website’s html.) On the other hand, this might be crap. It just means they haven’t found a way to completely screw you. Yet.
If it’s a legal document and it’s sent unsolicited then it should a part of public records.
–or–any document filed in a court house. This is beyond ridiculous and I thought it would be immediately overturned. Guess we have to wait for someone with money and interest to do it.
Yes, one bad judge can make a lot of really bad law.
But there are a lot and growing number of really bad laws–some litigated and confirmed. Civil Attachment of property pursuant to mere arrest at a drug bust is also completely outrageous and yet that law has been upheld. Seems the state of Emminent Domain where private property of one person is turned over to another private person for development is==what? Varies state by state I think.
Then–all the morality laws we have.
The list is actually kinda long. For my “conservative” stance on privacy rights, I still see the above as a violation of basic due process of law or of what should be human rights of privacy.
I think I hold a consistent position, not that that is a requirement.
Between this and corporate imminent domain say hello to your new Corporatocracy.
Shit like this makes me glad I’m 41 and only have to put up with this for another 35 yrs or so.
The title, the story – it’s all misleading. The last link shows how the whole thing is just a PR intended TO LEAD people to believe this way. Here is a quote from the last line of that:
So, while it’s still not a great decision, it’s not as crazy as it originally sounded… and it will act as a good reminder not to take press releases like this at face value.
Wow, go figure….
One idiot lawyer–the judge–sticking up for another idiot lawyer!
And I note that the home page of the lawyer’s web site does not pass HTML validation (64 errors), something that is easy to verify without viewing the source.
How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
What if you made a parody of it on your web site or reported it as “news”?
– Say, make a funny comic strip where you placed a copy of the “readable” pdf in the hands of Micky Mouse? oops can I say Mickey Mouse on a web site?
Wouldn’t that be ok?
Remember that “they” hate us for our “freedom”.
“Remember that “they” hate us for our “freedom”.”
NO, they LOVE you as a potential profitable target for their lawsuits.
Here is a VERY scary thought: Each and every single year, THOUSANDS of newly spawned lawyers are released upon to the world with the single-minded goal of each one of them becoming Multi-Millionairs via litigating ANYBODY or, ENTITY for ANY AMOUNT OF MOOLAH that they can get a brother judge to go along with.
Now, I’m a marked man by the Anti-Defamation League of American Bloodsucking Scumbags. Freedom of Speech? Not in Lawyerland, friends!
#2 – For my “conservative” stance on privacy rights,
You don’t have a conservative stance on privacy. Conservatives are in favor of privacy. There is a place further right on the scale that describes your position on privacy, however.
8, lawyers can’t screw in lightbulbs because the process is protected intellectual property. They can screw anyone else, however.
Do you think that will stop anyone? Under the current copyright law, which I think is still intact, it is legal to quote copyrighted material verbatim if the use is intended as criticism.
I don’t have much money. If I get sued for criticizing a lawyer who wrote me a copyrighted complaint… he ain’t gonna get much.
Certainly, if I received a cease and desist letter I would criticize it. And to criticize it, you would have to quote it. I believe the issue would not stand a first amendment test either.
I can’t cite chapter and verse, but the part of the law I am thinking about was intended to block these yahoos from copyrighting a complaint.
A later post in TechDirt says a press release about it over exagerated the issue.
Federal procedural rules in civil cases are pretty strict. A judge could sanction a lawyer without the other side even complaining.
It would not stop me from posting a cease and desist.
I don’t think John Dozier has to worry too much about people stealing his “HTML” code. The page where he says you cannot view his code uses a deprecated table layout instead of a CSS layout. Some other formatting is done with HTML instead of CSS.
All in all, not very good code, certainly not worth copying. If he is as internet savvy as he claims to be, he would have a better written site.
Honorable Mikel H. Williams
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
remember the name , publish and add the job title major idiot. this man has taken his law courses (one assumes) and knows that his ruling is crap. Go after him, hold up his name to ridicule, demand that he take remedial law 101 courses, check his financial records and see if he has been bought
Everyone still has the right to use copyrighted material in certain circumstances under fair use. There is way more case law on that issue than this one. So why not post it and then critique the shit out of it. Then use it as an educational topic for your readers “Look at that appalling sentence structure.” “Look at their choice of font.” “Is that proper legal format.” “Is the author writing in the first person?” “Are they writing from a female voice?”
All of that is legal under fair use.
Did you read the claim about the ruling? It’s passed the time for appeals, so it’s a permanent ruling.
#12–OFTLO==ok, neo-conservative as in the current administration?
Labels are slippery things.
# 12 OhForTheLoveOf said, > Conservatives are in favor of privacy.
Not any more, man. Not any more.
Conservatives USED to also favor fiscal responsibility and be against using the military for nation building.
Times have changed.
OK, for those who never look further than an admitted biased source.
The ruling was for a subpoena. The Magistrate appeared to cast doubts on the copyright portion of the letter but because that is not the issue here did not rule on it. He only validated the existence of the letter as a basis to issue the subpoena.
In order to bring a suit the party must show a minimum of evidence. The Dozier Law Firm met that threshold with their “copyrighted” letter. When this goes to trial then the “copyright” portion of the letter may be examined in more detail and at that point judged on its merits. Dozier is just bluffing at this point.
8, lawyers can’t screw in lightbulbs because the process is protected intellectual property. They can screw anyone else, however.
christ
find lawyer