Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

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.

« White House Considering Candidates To Head Consumer Product Safety Commission | Main | Eleventh Circuit Issues Important RESPA Class Action Decision »

Saturday, January 26, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b7a769e200e550081be78834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does copyright law bar the posting of unflattering cease and desist letters?:

» "Court Says You Can Copyright A Cease-And-Desist Letter" from Overlawyered
We and many others criticized a law firm in October for taking the position that its cease and desist letters, also known as nastygrams, were copyrighted and thus could not be posted intact on the... [Read More]

» Jan. 2008 Quick Links (IP Edition) from Technology & Marketing Law Blog
By Eric Goldman Trademarks and Domain Names * Adidas America, Inc. v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., 2007 WL 4482201 (D. Oregon... [Read More]

Comments

patrick

I think its a pretty good ruling. One of the functions of the DMCA is to assist web site owners in discovering the route back to compliance with copyright law and this practice of displaying these DMCA notifications is tantamount to public assault upon the copyright owners rights and reputation. Website owners need to stop the flagrant abuse of the trust we grant to them to responsibly operate an internet node, and the public needs a pretty big stick to profer a beatdown on rogue websites, and the DMCA is this stick. Suck it up, nobody likes a thief.

John W Dozier Jr, Esq.

First, you claimed you had to have a copyright registration in order to assert copyright rights. Even your liberal, free speech lawyer friends responded that someone needed to explain to you that registration is not required.

Then you claimed that calling a business a "scam" cannot be defamation, and we provided you with a list of court cases that not only found it defamatory but the most egregious form of defamation.

Then, you criticized our firm for claiming we could pull down copyright infringing sites without notice, and I had to point you to the US federal law that specifically allows this practice.

Now, you are trying to justify your advice to the online world that they could post cease and desist letters with impunity and without any risk. Gaining an understanding of the law of the Internet is an ongoing process, and I would have hoped you would have at least progressed to the point where you stop making ridiculous claims and arguments.

Anyone can read the briefs and see for themselves whether First Amendment and Free Speech arguments were asserted by the Defendants. You seem to have a problem with admitting mistakes. When you keep throwing out bad advice into the marketplace, it is akin to a business having a defective product. Nader and Public Citizen are famous for insisting upon recalls for defective services and products. You need to issue a recall on your advice.

Since you seem to have a relationship with Mr. Riley, I suggest you take a look at one of his many attack websites...www.amexsux.com, and pay particular attention to his many crazy claims. You are known by the company you keep, Mr. Levy.

You are all for free speech until you don't agree with the speech, and then you go on the attack. As for your personal attacks, anyone can visit our website and see my credentials...top peer review ratings from lawyers and judges across the board in Internet and Intellectual Property law. Why don't you tell us if you are AV rated at Martindale? A Superlawyer? Legal Elite in Virginia (where you practice)? All of these are peer selections for the highest regarded lawyers. Where are you, Mr. Levy?

say what!

Law firm violates copy right by using defendants

Law firm violates copy right by using defendants copyright works…
If the law firm owns the copy right to the Cease and desist letter… and uses the plaintiff intellectual property… such as trade name etc, In the laws firms work aka the “Cease-And-Desist” letter... this letter is in violation of copy right of the defendant.

Beans

Mr. Dozier:

Wow! You are Superlawyer! Gee whiz. Are you a SuperDuper Lawyer as well?

Beans

beans

Mr. Dozier:

You state that Mr. Levy claimed one "had to have a copyright registration in order to assert copyright rights." He never said that. Mr. Levy noted that the C&D letter was not registered. Moreover, Mr. Beck, who made the original posting on this blog, said the following: "The letter is not registered with the copyright office, and until it is, DirectBuy's law firm can't sue to enforce it." Mr. Beck also said in response to the same or a similar comment that you are now making: "It's true that a work can be copyrighted even if it's not registered. However, registration is a prerequisite to filing suit. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) ("[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."). The law firm could still register the work and then sue for infringement, but even if it could get past the fair use defense, its damages would be limited by its failure to register before the alleged infringement."

So, Mr. Dozier, I have a question: Do you know what you are talking about? Should a Super Lawyer know better?

Beans

Not John Dozier

Mr. Dozier:

Just wanted to let you know, that contrary to your User Agreement, I viewed the source code on your User Agreement/Privacy Policy page. I was unaware that copyright laws prevent a person from viewing copyrighted material.

Marc J. Randazza

Dozier,

Now we see where the aggression comes from, don't we?

"Even your liberal, free speech lawyer friends responded that someone needed to explain to you that registration is not required."

This particular libertarian can tell you that I haven't been able to find any support for your claim that Public Citizen said you needed a registration to have a copyright -- but only that you need a registration in order to sue. If you are such an intellectual property heavy weight, you know that you need registration before the infringement in order to really have any remedies aside from an injunction.

Your hissy fit really declines here:

"You are all for free speech until you don't agree with the speech, and then you go on the attack.

Its called the marketplace of ideas, Dozier. You put your ideas out there and Public Citizen attacked them. Nobody tried to stop you from expressing your point of view -- but there is no theory of free speech that says "criticizing someone else's speech is a violation of their free speech rights."

Regarding your "credentials," I'm not impressed. I'm BV rated (the highest rating available for someone with my years of practice). I got that by listing people who liked me, Martindale called them and made sure they liked me, and I got the rating. Whoop dee doo. Yeah, I'm proud of it, but I don't think that it makes me superior to anyone without the rating.

Superlawyers and Legal Elite? Anyone willing to put in the time vote-swapping or politicking can get that. Yawn.

Georg Felis

Any threatening correspondence sent to my place of blogging can be reliably counted upon to be posted immediatly, if it is a crayoned letter or written on vellum with golden lettering, and damm the consequences. Cyberbullying should be quashed with the light of day. If you write me a letter claiming I'm polluting with my CO2 emissions, or claiming I secretly love clams, or threatening me with criminal prosecution and jail time, those are all threats in my opinion, and not a valid reason for suing me for posting them.

Now if I were to cut-and-paste from your cease-and-desist order into one of my own, I would certainly expect to have my pants sued off, and for good reason, because I would be appropriating your own work as my own.

Darlene

"But Dozier seems not to have read the actual decision carefully."

No one else seems to have either. It wasn't a decision by a district court judge but a rrecommendation of a ruling on a pre-trial motion by a magistrate. It does not determine the issue but merely states that there is a prima facia argument for copyrightability. A prima facia merely means that is is worth looking into further. But the whole thing has no precedential value whatsoever and doesn't even have to be followed by the judge assigned to the case.

amexsux

"...Since you seem to have a relationship with Mr. Riley, I suggest you take a look at one of his many attack websites...www.amexsux.com, and pay particular attention to his many crazy claims. You are known by the company you keep, Mr. Levy."

For the record, Mr. Riley does not own or operate amexsux.com.

Find Lawyer

This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.
Amy Cooper

childhood obesity statistics

The ruling reveals something else – disturbing in its own way, but not what Dozier claims.

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

April 2014

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