contract law: October 2007 Archives
This has got to be, without exception, the absolute dumbest browse-wrap licence I've ever seen. For those not familiar with the term, a 'browsewrap' licence is a purportedly contractual agreement that many websites like to pretend that you have agreed to be bound by, simply by using their website. e.g. 'By using this website, you agree we own your soul.'
This particular browsewrap agreement is on the website of Dozier Internet Law PC. Amongst other things, it claims that viewing the HTML source of their website is an infringement of copyright. As they purport to be 'The Lawyers for Internet Business', they ought to know that the enforcability of browsewrap agreements is a very grey area, ought to know that many of their intellectual property claims are insane, and generally ought to know better.
Then again, this is the same law firm who has threatened to sue people for posting copies on the Internet of cease-and-desist nastygrams which they've sent out.
Other coverage of this issue is at Slashdot, Techdirt, and the Consumer Law & Policy Blog.
Here's part of one of the stupidest clauses:
This particular browsewrap agreement is on the website of Dozier Internet Law PC. Amongst other things, it claims that viewing the HTML source of their website is an infringement of copyright. As they purport to be 'The Lawyers for Internet Business', they ought to know that the enforcability of browsewrap agreements is a very grey area, ought to know that many of their intellectual property claims are insane, and generally ought to know better.
Then again, this is the same law firm who has threatened to sue people for posting copies on the Internet of cease-and-desist nastygrams which they've sent out.
Other coverage of this issue is at Slashdot, Techdirt, and the Consumer Law & Policy Blog.
Here's part of one of the stupidest clauses:
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.So, I guess they'll now be suing me for:
Go on, I dare you.
- Copyright infringement for viewing their HTML. Which, incidentally, is not valid HTML, and isn't written particularly well either. e.g. <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="keywords go in here">;
- Linking to their website without their express permission. Good luck with that;
- Copying part of their website, because they don't want anyone copying them. I wonder how they feel about criticism, ridicule and parody?; and
- Using their name without their permission. I'm shaking in my shoes. Maybe if i say their name backwards, I can banish them to some other dimension?
After a seminar today run by Peter Black on the use of 'Web 2.0' in teaching, Peter and Jessica Coates tried to convince me that Facebook is not, in fact, crap, and is substantially better than Myspace; which is presumably, impliedly, crap. Unless you're a ditzy teenager whose life ambition is to be on Paris Hilton's friends list and thereby gain some kind of incredibly lame validation. But I digress...
Earlier in the seminar, I'd voiced my objection to the possibility that students might be compelled to become members of some of these 'Web 2.0' services to do mandatory assessment items in some subjects. This would, of course, require those students to enter into a contractual relationship with those service providers, with associated legal liability and privacy risks. It might also constitute third line forcing, which is per-se illegal in Australia, but that's a different issue.
The concerns I raised were largely dismissed as paranoia. So, I got to thinking, exactly what is in the applicable contracts for a service like Facebook? In this posting, I dissect the Facebook 'Terms of Use'... You know, that massively long (over 6000 words), complicated, contractual document that nobody ever reads when they sign up.
Earlier in the seminar, I'd voiced my objection to the possibility that students might be compelled to become members of some of these 'Web 2.0' services to do mandatory assessment items in some subjects. This would, of course, require those students to enter into a contractual relationship with those service providers, with associated legal liability and privacy risks. It might also constitute third line forcing, which is per-se illegal in Australia, but that's a different issue.
The concerns I raised were largely dismissed as paranoia. So, I got to thinking, exactly what is in the applicable contracts for a service like Facebook? In this posting, I dissect the Facebook 'Terms of Use'... You know, that massively long (over 6000 words), complicated, contractual document that nobody ever reads when they sign up.
Continue reading Dissecting the Facebook 'Terms of Use'.
