Oops... too late...



  • [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3984/uhohae0.png[/IMG][/URL]

    This link is also a violation... but whatever: http://www.cybertriallawyer.com/user-agreement 



  • It's fortunate that your satirization allows you to claim a fair use defense. :)



  • "We hereby provide our prized intellectual property, free of charge, for the entire world to look at. PLEASE NO ONE LOOK AT IT OR WE'LL SUE YOU. Thanks. XOXOXO"



  • Who the hell wrote this crap? You don't have to be "authorized" to view a copyrighted work. If it is legally in your possession (and it is, since their server served it up to you), then you can look at it.

     



  • It's funny how they can't spell "class."



  • I think this lets you off the hook:

    " Make sure that you don’t just read through this website and rely on
    what it says since we expressly disclaim all liability with respect to
    your actions taken, or not taken, based on the contents of this website."

     So, are they disclaiming any legal stuff on the website, including the disclaimer?  I also like the "hacking" industry comment. Also, how do they plan to prevent 13 year olds from seeing the site?
     



  • I hope you're didn't find this site by clicking an ad. 

    "We do not authorize
    you to access the Dozier Internet Law, P.C. website by conducting
    “click attacks”, which is the practice of clicking on one of our online
    ads for the purpose of running up our advertising costs. All of our
    online advertising is intended solely and exclusively for bona fide
    prospective clients. By clicking on an online ad, you are immediately
    directed to our website. If you are conducting a “click attack” and are
    not a legitimate, bona fide prospective client, your access to any page
    of our website is unauthorized."

    This clause should be included on every web page out there. Spamming would drop dramatically.

    "We do not permit our website to be “spidered”, or a program run through
    the website, for purposes of obtaining email addresses to be used in
    commercial email campaigns."
     



  • @WeatherGod said:

    I think this lets you off the hook:

    " Make sure that you don’t just read through this website and rely on
    what it says since we expressly disclaim all liability with respect to
    your actions taken, or not taken, based on the contents of this website."

     So, are they disclaiming any legal stuff on the website, including the disclaimer?  I also like the "hacking" industry comment. Also, how do they plan to prevent 13 year olds from seeing the site?
     


    Wouldn't that phrase be included in it's own exclusion, thus making it true and false at the same time?



  • @bairy said:

    @WeatherGod said:

    I think this lets you off the hook:

    " Make sure that you don’t just read through this website and rely on
    what it says since we expressly disclaim all liability with respect to
    your actions taken, or not taken, based on the contents of this website."

     So, are they disclaiming any legal stuff on the website, including the disclaimer?  I also like the "hacking" industry comment. Also, how do they plan to prevent 13 year olds from seeing the site?
     


    Wouldn't that phrase be included in it's own exclusion, thus making it true and false at the same time?

    So, if it is true and false at the same time, then it must be a tri-bool!  FILE_NOT_FOUND!



  • @djork said:


    [b]We[/b] do not permit you to view such code since we consider it ...
    ... constitute our trademark and servicemark, and [b]should[/b] not be used ...

    Is it just me, or is the language unusually vague for legalspeak?  Looks like they know perfectly well they can't forbid people doing anything they want, but they try to make it sound official and forbidding. (without stepping over the line to making actual legal claims)



  • Well, I guess they did that on purpose - lots of free advertising. How much would you have to pay to gain the same number of page views when using more common kinds of advertising?



  • @magetoo said:

    Is it just me, or is the language unusually vague for legalspeak?  Looks like they know perfectly well they can't forbid people doing anything they want, but they try to make it sound official and forbidding. (without stepping over the line to making actual legal claims)

    It's "plain english" legal-speak.  They try to make it sound friendly, "our website has lots of content," but it is fairly easy for them to apply any interpretation to it later.  If it comes up in court, it gets translated back into technical legal terms.  You are probably right that they are trying to frighten the easily-scared.

    It looks like a really smart copyright lawyer has written this without any understanding of how computers or the internet actually work.  I think we should start teaching this laywer with biology: when you read a copyrighted work, there is an internal representation of that work within the reader's brain - they must be copying it illegally!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.