Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen's Consumer Justice Project, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« The Alcoholic Beverage Industry’s Response to Underage Drinking: Add Stimulants | Main | Times Editorial on Lending Discrimination »

Wednesday, October 17, 2007


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All Criticism of This Website Is Hereby Forbidden:

» Law-firm: copyright prohibits "view source" on our page from Boing Boing
Greg sez, This law firm includes a term in its website's "User Agreement" that's a new one for me: 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 per... [Read More]

» Sweet, forbidden fruit from llamaSpit
Via BoingBoing, I found this very interesting article on silly - nay, extremely silly - website User Agreements. You may have seen these before; often theres a link in a small font at the very bottom of the page youre viewing which when c... [Read More]

» This HTML code should be illegal from Broken Links
The website says that you are prohibited to link - or even refer - to them without their permission. Oops. According to their terms, you are not authorised to even look at their HTML code: We also own all of the code, including t... [Read More]

» Don't link, criticize, use our name, refer to us, view our source code... from Overlawyered
Just by browsing the website of a company called Inventor-Link, visitors supposedly consent to abide by the terms of a "user agreement" which "strictly" prohibits them from using not only any of the site's content... [Read More]

» Some law firms really dont get it from Jacobson Attorneys
I saw this item on BoingBoing (linked to the Consumer Law and Policy Blog) and had a giggle. Sometimes lawyers really just dont get it and go a little too far. This clause was found on a companys website. After reading this I have to w... [Read More]



Can't view the source code? WTF? It's not as if the code is decent - there are loads of errors in the markup. Who'd want to use it.

Paul Parkinson

Bwahahah. What kind of moronic statement is that. Someone please hack their crappy site...

Peter Gasston

Oops! I just looked at their source code without authorization. I shall expect a summons to court to arrive shortly.


thank you firefox, i am currently enjoying some html code from the site, what can i say i like to break the rules!


This needs to be updated. If you take a look at their "user agreement", it says nothing about the source code. Maybe they removed it after some emails for peeps like us?


Geoff, the post describes two user agreements. Both of them are bad, but the prohibition on viewing source is in the law firm terms:


They also don't "own all of the code" as this is found in the source and you don't have to look very far to find it.

// OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin,, copyright 2004

So, are they claiming that they have stolen this from Nate Baldwin or are they just lying outright.

Either way...they lose.


The irony here is that almost all forms that law firms use are derived from other forms that other law firms use, which in turn... and so on, for decades, if not a couple centuries.

In fact, much of the practice of law benefits from the absence of a strong copyright regime in legal documents, and certainly clients benefit, because the cost to recreate every document from scratch would be substantial, and the re-use of existing forms and other agreements allows good solutions to propagate relatively freely. This raises the standard of practice for the profession as a whole, and (believe it or not) substantially reduces the cost of legal services.

Anon, heh, yeah right!

Odd, my browser must 'view the code' in order the render the page, a virus scanner must 'view the code' to protect my system, are all virus scanners and browsers in violation of copyright? I guess we'll find out what the jury says...


I feel like giving them a phone call just to tell them, that i looked at their source code and even played around with it with Web Developer Toolbar and Firebug.

Oh my God, i feel so terribly ashamed for doing that ;-)


If they don't want their source code viewed, they should take it down hahahah


Putting aside for a moment various comments about how some of the source isn't owned by the website's owners, AND the main point of the post about "browse-wrap" enforceability, but isn't a "license" restriction prohibiting the viewing of HTML source code something a copyright owner could in fact condition a license on, at least under the Copyright Act. (practical reality aside.) If the code was a copyrightable work of that author, a license to display in web browser-rendered form but not in "uncompiled" text seems (to me) like a legal (if not intelligent) license restriction.


Great. Newbie lawyers who got on the Internet yesterday. Just what the world needs. I hope nobody ever views their source code or their web site for that matter.

"You go to hell. You go to hell and die."

Max Powers at

Another case of lawyers making things up as they go. These scam company's must be making truck loads of money to pay for these lawyers. Pretty soon they are going to figure out a way to prevent us from breathing the same air as their clients.


seems the site is down, either they realized how stupid they are or someone showed them..

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

May 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30