Defamation of The Dead on NPR Monday, by John W. Dozier
May 05, 2009
Internet Lawyer John W Dozier Jr. will be on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" Monday. Tune in to learn about defamation of the dead...and how to deal with social network profiles of the deceased...interesting and timely topics. No doubt that the complexities of living life in a connected world are growing.
Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:29 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:31 pm
Defamation Lawyers' Top Ten Scofflaw Blogger Personas, by John W. Dozier
May 17, 2009
As defamation lawyers, we handle numerous situations in which attacks have been visited upon victims in many different ways. Sometimes the tool is defamation, hacking, stalking, intellectual property infringement, privacy violations, or spam. These attacks emanate from all corners and from all types. We've put together a list of the top ten blogger personas of those involved in defamation and related misconduct and we get a lot of requests for this list.
You can find it at our defamation lawyers page. Spiced with a bit of humor, the list is an easy read for those trying to figure out the motivation behind attacks and attackers. When faced with an online defamation problem, consider consulting our defamation lawyers page with an eye towards gaining a better understanding of the source of your problems.
Defamation Lawyers for Web Business
Defamation Lawyers: Top Ten Blogger Personas: The Mobosphere Unveiled
Ever since Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act giving immunity to interactive service providers for publishing the defamation of others, a wide range of characters has arisen and infiltrated the mainstream blogosphere. Instead of becoming a source for obtaining reliable information, the blogosphere, and user generated content, is at risk of becoming a less credible information source. Cybertriallawyer.com Internet Law defamation lawyers are constantly battling these “black hat” forces and over the past several years we have acquired quite an insight into this underworld; an anonymous and covert society bent on terrorizing businesses. These are our internal thoughts on the matter, and not scientific analyses. We are not psychiatrists; just defamation lawyers and trial lawyers trained for almost fifty years to figure out the human nature of clients, witnesses, and juries.
All too often blog attacks are simply protection rackets and extortion schemes in disguise. We have been working on documenting the organizational structure and operational methodologies used by these racketeers. For now, let’s take a look at the entire panoply of characters we seem, as business defamation lawyers, to run into. For those businesses under attack, it is essential that you first identify the publisher’s persona and motivation before beginning to identify the proper strategies for addressing his often seemingly legitimate posts. We don’t go into details on how we work with clients to deal with each type of personality, but the tools vary considerably from being passive, to utilizing SEO services, to implementing reputation management initiatives, to pre-litigation and lawsuit actions.
Defamation Lawyers Pursue Bloggers
1. Pickpocket
This is the guy who used to wait on street corners for elderly ladies to pass. He enjoys attacking defenseless people and stealing covertly using deception. This type of blogger will steal your copyright protected content, have the search engines push your prospective clients to his site, and then run ads and otherwise direct the traffic to your competitors. He could be an affiliate marketer for a competitor getting a share of the revenue, or he could simply be running Google or Yahoo ads on his site. Pickpockets also take great pleasure in stealing your trademarks…surreptitiously using your mark in hidden tags, meta tags, hidden redirect pages, or through a myriad of search engine optimization techniques, all in the hopes of re-directing your prospects to a competitor and taking money from you.
2. Wacko
We usually identify a wacko situation quickly. There are distinctive characteristics of his communications. The wacko is usually a “follower”, someone looking to gain attention and recognition, but escalates what may have started as fair criticism into more and more outrageous claims. Most sophisticated business people immediately view the poster as a “nut case”, particularly when an excessive amount of time or energy disproportionate to the merits of the subject is expended. But it is not easy for the typical browser on the web to see the pattern, usually spread over multiple web properties.
3. Druggie
Or, maybe “liquid courage” would be more appropriate. This guy is exactly what comes to mind. During the day this blogger is a normal guy, but at night he returns to the sanctity of his home, gets drunk or high, and goes out on the web looking for “hook-ups” and blogging on his “hang-ups”. This guy is hard to detect as a fraudster, and sometimes won’t recall what he said online the next day while under the influence. He posts aggressive, false and arbitrary attacks on whatever issue of the day (or night) catches his fancy.
4. Alien
No, not from another world. But from overseas. In a far, far away place, without any treaty with the US, in a country without an effective legal system and no notion of business or personal property ownership rights. Many of these types operate out of certain Russian provinces, but the blogs, postings and communications appear to be from the customer down the street. This individual usually has an ulterior motive, often working with the criminal discussed below. He has no fear, until he takes a vacation to Turkey and US federal agents grab him for extradition, which is exactly what happened on a case in the not so recent past.
5. Nerd
This is the guy who is scared to talk with a girl, but behind the keyboard, all alone, morphs into a Casanova. This empowerment of anonymity creates an omnipotent persona, and for the first time the nerd feels the effect of power and control, gets an adrenaline buzz when he exercises it, and he exercises it often, usually creating or perpetuating a volatile situation in which he feels he can outsmart the “opposition”. There is no principle involved. His blog postings are all about the adrenaline. It is hard to know if you are dealing with this type online…his posts are intelligent and on their face credible. But, once you identify the nerd blogger, he cowers and goes away, usually forever.
6. Rookie
Enjoy debating a thirteen year old? They are out on the net acting like adults, posting statements and play-acting like a grown-up. The challenge, of course, is that most people reading the posts have no idea these are coming from a kid. The tip off can be the utter immaturity of the posts, but most often the kids can sound credible criticizing, for instance, a CPA’s method of calculating RIO on REIT holdings, because they can mimic earlier posts. There is no insidious motive here; just kids having fun as the hormones kick in. But the readers of the blog posting don’t know that.
7. Sadist
This person attacks others, causes pain, and revels in the results in ways not worthy of mention. He loves to create, direct, control, and unleash a firestorm of criticism about a company just to create pain and damage. This type of person may often by the prime instigator of the online attacks, and tightens the noose by escalating the attack rapidly, almost as if in an obsessive state. You will find a sadist going to many sites and blogging, and he usually lets you know it was him because he uses his real moniker. He has characteristics of a stalker, and he is most likely to be the one that starts recommending direct physical violence against the executives of a company. This person is not motivated by money, but by the pure enjoyment of pain being visited upon innocent parties.
8. Bankrupt
No, not morally bankrupt. Actually bankrupt…no money, no assets, no prospects for work, and nothing to lose. These bloggers post without fear of the consequences or any regard for the truth because you “can’t get blood out of a turnip”, you “can’t get water from a rock”, and all these other sayings handed down, we surmise, through his generations. This is usually not a smart guy, but his postings are damaging and inflammatory. Many will own and control blogs without any concern about the consequences of liabilities that might arise through the perpetuation and “enhancement” of posts, and sometimes will post to their own blog and act like it was from a third party.
9. Criminal
Career criminals, no less. Like the convicted felon running a sophisticated extortion scheme against a very prominent business. Or the owner of an open blog avoiding service of process with guard dogs protecting his compound. The thieves and crooks of the world are online today; and the criminals often have both an organization and a highly effective and surprisingly coordinated operational plan in place to target a business. Rumors of $500,000 a year payoffs seem to promote this problem, which emanates from more of a “mobosphere” than the blogosphere.
10. Mis-Leader
This person is in no manner a leader. This blogger has a hidden agenda, but he just makes it sound like he is a totally objective commentator. He can create an appearance of authority and the casual visitor to his blog does not question the legitimacy. This type of persona is hard to figure out. One of the most pervasive practices is to control a blog and allow negative posts against all except his generous advertisers. Another common technique involves omission; not disclosing conflicts of interest or the existence of a business or personal relationship because the readers of the blog would totally discount the commentator’s posts as unreliable and biased.
Internet Law Defamation Lawyers
In closing, most of the blogosphere is legitimate, offers honest opinions and comments that add value to an open dialogue, and is an excellent example of the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech. As business defamation lawyers, we seen another side. The “mobosphere”, on the other hand, operates outside of the spotlight and often uses reckless, irresponsible, false and defamatory statements for personal or professional gain, all too often focused on self gratification and pecuniary benefits. As businesses attempt to leverage user generated content (“UGC”) into a valuable tool in the Web 2.0 environment, the proliferation of the scofflaws interrupting the free flow of credible speech in the online world puts at risk the reputation and integrity of UGC and raises the very real risk that consumers will begin viewing web content with disdain and suspicion.=
May 17, 2009
As defamation lawyers, we handle numerous situations in which attacks have been visited upon victims in many different ways. Sometimes the tool is defamation, hacking, stalking, intellectual property infringement, privacy violations, or spam. These attacks emanate from all corners and from all types. We've put together a list of the top ten blogger personas of those involved in defamation and related misconduct and we get a lot of requests for this list.
You can find it at our defamation lawyers page. Spiced with a bit of humor, the list is an easy read for those trying to figure out the motivation behind attacks and attackers. When faced with an online defamation problem, consider consulting our defamation lawyers page with an eye towards gaining a better understanding of the source of your problems.
Defamation Lawyers for Web Business
Defamation Lawyers: Top Ten Blogger Personas: The Mobosphere Unveiled
Ever since Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act giving immunity to interactive service providers for publishing the defamation of others, a wide range of characters has arisen and infiltrated the mainstream blogosphere. Instead of becoming a source for obtaining reliable information, the blogosphere, and user generated content, is at risk of becoming a less credible information source. Cybertriallawyer.com Internet Law defamation lawyers are constantly battling these “black hat” forces and over the past several years we have acquired quite an insight into this underworld; an anonymous and covert society bent on terrorizing businesses. These are our internal thoughts on the matter, and not scientific analyses. We are not psychiatrists; just defamation lawyers and trial lawyers trained for almost fifty years to figure out the human nature of clients, witnesses, and juries.
All too often blog attacks are simply protection rackets and extortion schemes in disguise. We have been working on documenting the organizational structure and operational methodologies used by these racketeers. For now, let’s take a look at the entire panoply of characters we seem, as business defamation lawyers, to run into. For those businesses under attack, it is essential that you first identify the publisher’s persona and motivation before beginning to identify the proper strategies for addressing his often seemingly legitimate posts. We don’t go into details on how we work with clients to deal with each type of personality, but the tools vary considerably from being passive, to utilizing SEO services, to implementing reputation management initiatives, to pre-litigation and lawsuit actions.
Defamation Lawyers Pursue Bloggers
1. Pickpocket
This is the guy who used to wait on street corners for elderly ladies to pass. He enjoys attacking defenseless people and stealing covertly using deception. This type of blogger will steal your copyright protected content, have the search engines push your prospective clients to his site, and then run ads and otherwise direct the traffic to your competitors. He could be an affiliate marketer for a competitor getting a share of the revenue, or he could simply be running Google or Yahoo ads on his site. Pickpockets also take great pleasure in stealing your trademarks…surreptitiously using your mark in hidden tags, meta tags, hidden redirect pages, or through a myriad of search engine optimization techniques, all in the hopes of re-directing your prospects to a competitor and taking money from you.
2. Wacko
We usually identify a wacko situation quickly. There are distinctive characteristics of his communications. The wacko is usually a “follower”, someone looking to gain attention and recognition, but escalates what may have started as fair criticism into more and more outrageous claims. Most sophisticated business people immediately view the poster as a “nut case”, particularly when an excessive amount of time or energy disproportionate to the merits of the subject is expended. But it is not easy for the typical browser on the web to see the pattern, usually spread over multiple web properties.
3. Druggie
Or, maybe “liquid courage” would be more appropriate. This guy is exactly what comes to mind. During the day this blogger is a normal guy, but at night he returns to the sanctity of his home, gets drunk or high, and goes out on the web looking for “hook-ups” and blogging on his “hang-ups”. This guy is hard to detect as a fraudster, and sometimes won’t recall what he said online the next day while under the influence. He posts aggressive, false and arbitrary attacks on whatever issue of the day (or night) catches his fancy.
4. Alien
No, not from another world. But from overseas. In a far, far away place, without any treaty with the US, in a country without an effective legal system and no notion of business or personal property ownership rights. Many of these types operate out of certain Russian provinces, but the blogs, postings and communications appear to be from the customer down the street. This individual usually has an ulterior motive, often working with the criminal discussed below. He has no fear, until he takes a vacation to Turkey and US federal agents grab him for extradition, which is exactly what happened on a case in the not so recent past.
5. Nerd
This is the guy who is scared to talk with a girl, but behind the keyboard, all alone, morphs into a Casanova. This empowerment of anonymity creates an omnipotent persona, and for the first time the nerd feels the effect of power and control, gets an adrenaline buzz when he exercises it, and he exercises it often, usually creating or perpetuating a volatile situation in which he feels he can outsmart the “opposition”. There is no principle involved. His blog postings are all about the adrenaline. It is hard to know if you are dealing with this type online…his posts are intelligent and on their face credible. But, once you identify the nerd blogger, he cowers and goes away, usually forever.
6. Rookie
Enjoy debating a thirteen year old? They are out on the net acting like adults, posting statements and play-acting like a grown-up. The challenge, of course, is that most people reading the posts have no idea these are coming from a kid. The tip off can be the utter immaturity of the posts, but most often the kids can sound credible criticizing, for instance, a CPA’s method of calculating RIO on REIT holdings, because they can mimic earlier posts. There is no insidious motive here; just kids having fun as the hormones kick in. But the readers of the blog posting don’t know that.
7. Sadist
This person attacks others, causes pain, and revels in the results in ways not worthy of mention. He loves to create, direct, control, and unleash a firestorm of criticism about a company just to create pain and damage. This type of person may often by the prime instigator of the online attacks, and tightens the noose by escalating the attack rapidly, almost as if in an obsessive state. You will find a sadist going to many sites and blogging, and he usually lets you know it was him because he uses his real moniker. He has characteristics of a stalker, and he is most likely to be the one that starts recommending direct physical violence against the executives of a company. This person is not motivated by money, but by the pure enjoyment of pain being visited upon innocent parties.
8. Bankrupt
No, not morally bankrupt. Actually bankrupt…no money, no assets, no prospects for work, and nothing to lose. These bloggers post without fear of the consequences or any regard for the truth because you “can’t get blood out of a turnip”, you “can’t get water from a rock”, and all these other sayings handed down, we surmise, through his generations. This is usually not a smart guy, but his postings are damaging and inflammatory. Many will own and control blogs without any concern about the consequences of liabilities that might arise through the perpetuation and “enhancement” of posts, and sometimes will post to their own blog and act like it was from a third party.
9. Criminal
Career criminals, no less. Like the convicted felon running a sophisticated extortion scheme against a very prominent business. Or the owner of an open blog avoiding service of process with guard dogs protecting his compound. The thieves and crooks of the world are online today; and the criminals often have both an organization and a highly effective and surprisingly coordinated operational plan in place to target a business. Rumors of $500,000 a year payoffs seem to promote this problem, which emanates from more of a “mobosphere” than the blogosphere.
10. Mis-Leader
This person is in no manner a leader. This blogger has a hidden agenda, but he just makes it sound like he is a totally objective commentator. He can create an appearance of authority and the casual visitor to his blog does not question the legitimacy. This type of persona is hard to figure out. One of the most pervasive practices is to control a blog and allow negative posts against all except his generous advertisers. Another common technique involves omission; not disclosing conflicts of interest or the existence of a business or personal relationship because the readers of the blog would totally discount the commentator’s posts as unreliable and biased.
Internet Law Defamation Lawyers
In closing, most of the blogosphere is legitimate, offers honest opinions and comments that add value to an open dialogue, and is an excellent example of the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech. As business defamation lawyers, we seen another side. The “mobosphere”, on the other hand, operates outside of the spotlight and often uses reckless, irresponsible, false and defamatory statements for personal or professional gain, all too often focused on self gratification and pecuniary benefits. As businesses attempt to leverage user generated content (“UGC”) into a valuable tool in the Web 2.0 environment, the proliferation of the scofflaws interrupting the free flow of credible speech in the online world puts at risk the reputation and integrity of UGC and raises the very real risk that consumers will begin viewing web content with disdain and suspicion.=
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:31 pm
Golf Lesson: Ten Things You Never Want To Hear On The Tee, by John W. Dozier
May 18, 2009
It's early in the golf season, and my driver is suffering. Here are the top ten things I came up with that you never want to hear after you tee off. Thought I would divert from a serious tone for a moment or two in honor of the Spring golf season.
10) You're still away.
9) That's a worm burner.
8) I've never seen anyone there before.
7) I think it opens up over there.
6) Want a mulligan?
5) You should hit a provisional.
4) It's just beyond the white stake.
3) I think it made it to the other fairway.
2) Your problem is that you are standing too close to the ball after you hit it.
1) Have you considered tennis?
May 18, 2009
It's early in the golf season, and my driver is suffering. Here are the top ten things I came up with that you never want to hear after you tee off. Thought I would divert from a serious tone for a moment or two in honor of the Spring golf season.
10) You're still away.
9) That's a worm burner.
8) I've never seen anyone there before.
7) I think it opens up over there.
6) Want a mulligan?
5) You should hit a provisional.
4) It's just beyond the white stake.
3) I think it made it to the other fairway.
2) Your problem is that you are standing too close to the ball after you hit it.
1) Have you considered tennis?
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:32 pm
MySpace Suicide Case Dismissal, by John W. Dozier
May 19, 2009
First, if you click on the "MySpace Suicide" category link to the right you can see what has been said about this case. You can see where Dozier Internet Law has been speaking out for almost two years about the problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And as far as I can tell, Dozier Internet Law was the only legal voice online to not come out and attack this prosecution. Given the law as it exists today, though, the conviction makes sense.
At sentencing yesterday for the conviction, the Judge delayed it until July 2 and is considering dismissing the charges and overturning the convictions. Here is what Dozier said last year when the case was being tried:
"I will say, however, that the facts of the MySpace Suicide case are ambiguous and complex, and I won't be surprised if the case is dismissed by the Judge post verdict or the jury returns a 'not guilty' verdict. Don't take that as a statement that the law does not apply to those violating a terms of use on a website. In my opinion it clearly does apply. Now, let's get the new Congress to fix it like I suggested a year and a half ago."
The Judge has now expressed concern over the impact of this conviction on the masses and the possibility of criminalizing the conduct of the masses who violate website terms and contracts. This is another example of legislating from the bench. The Judge is correct to be concerned. But the change to the law must come from Congress, not the Judiciary. Judicial activism may be popular among the liberal left wingers, but it is not the right thing to do, particularly in this case.
And the reason is clear. If Judges can decide whether laws are good or bad and change them at will, then we have a real problem with the balancing of powers. What power really remains with Congress, or the state legislatures or even city councils? Not much in the end. And from a practical standpoint, if Congress elects to change the hacking statute (which I have been calling for them to do for years) then you can bet that Congress will come up with some legislation to address this type of misconduct visited upon the young girl in this tragic case. Perhaps establishing liability by requiring a digital signature be placed on user agreements, or another law that is focused on these types of abusive uses, will be forthcoming. But that is up to Congress.
Not a California Judge.
An intellectually honest Judge with a conscience is a great thing. But everyone must know their bounds of authority and responsibility. Judges interpret the law. Congress and the executive branch make it.
The fix will certainly require modifying the existing law or adding new law. That's something Judges cannot do. And that is why judicial activism is fundamentally wrong. I'm not criticizing the Judge. I'm criticizing a fundamental philosophy. The present law was last amended in the Patriot Act passed just after 9/11. It's time for Congress to revisit the issue and make sure that the issue the Judge faces today will not be an impediment to future convictions of online scofflaws and miscreants intent upon visiting harm to netizens through gross misconduct or, in a broader sense, online terrorism.
Dozier's book on online attacks, "Google Bomb", is coming in September. You'll appreciate the need for strong legislative action once you learn about the underworld of the web, the attacks of the mobosphere, the virtual Hydra, the Streisand Effect, and the Google Bomb.
May 19, 2009
First, if you click on the "MySpace Suicide" category link to the right you can see what has been said about this case. You can see where Dozier Internet Law has been speaking out for almost two years about the problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. And as far as I can tell, Dozier Internet Law was the only legal voice online to not come out and attack this prosecution. Given the law as it exists today, though, the conviction makes sense.
At sentencing yesterday for the conviction, the Judge delayed it until July 2 and is considering dismissing the charges and overturning the convictions. Here is what Dozier said last year when the case was being tried:
"I will say, however, that the facts of the MySpace Suicide case are ambiguous and complex, and I won't be surprised if the case is dismissed by the Judge post verdict or the jury returns a 'not guilty' verdict. Don't take that as a statement that the law does not apply to those violating a terms of use on a website. In my opinion it clearly does apply. Now, let's get the new Congress to fix it like I suggested a year and a half ago."
The Judge has now expressed concern over the impact of this conviction on the masses and the possibility of criminalizing the conduct of the masses who violate website terms and contracts. This is another example of legislating from the bench. The Judge is correct to be concerned. But the change to the law must come from Congress, not the Judiciary. Judicial activism may be popular among the liberal left wingers, but it is not the right thing to do, particularly in this case.
And the reason is clear. If Judges can decide whether laws are good or bad and change them at will, then we have a real problem with the balancing of powers. What power really remains with Congress, or the state legislatures or even city councils? Not much in the end. And from a practical standpoint, if Congress elects to change the hacking statute (which I have been calling for them to do for years) then you can bet that Congress will come up with some legislation to address this type of misconduct visited upon the young girl in this tragic case. Perhaps establishing liability by requiring a digital signature be placed on user agreements, or another law that is focused on these types of abusive uses, will be forthcoming. But that is up to Congress.
Not a California Judge.
An intellectually honest Judge with a conscience is a great thing. But everyone must know their bounds of authority and responsibility. Judges interpret the law. Congress and the executive branch make it.
The fix will certainly require modifying the existing law or adding new law. That's something Judges cannot do. And that is why judicial activism is fundamentally wrong. I'm not criticizing the Judge. I'm criticizing a fundamental philosophy. The present law was last amended in the Patriot Act passed just after 9/11. It's time for Congress to revisit the issue and make sure that the issue the Judge faces today will not be an impediment to future convictions of online scofflaws and miscreants intent upon visiting harm to netizens through gross misconduct or, in a broader sense, online terrorism.
Dozier's book on online attacks, "Google Bomb", is coming in September. You'll appreciate the need for strong legislative action once you learn about the underworld of the web, the attacks of the mobosphere, the virtual Hydra, the Streisand Effect, and the Google Bomb.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:33 pm
Google Bomb Book Coming September 1, by John W. Dozier
May 23, 2009
Google Bomb, the book, will be in your favorite bookstores September 1, 2009. Google Bomb is the story of Sue Scheff and legal commentary from John W Dozier Jr.
Google Bomb, the book, will change the way you think about the web. The text follows:
May 23, 2009
Google Bomb, the book, will be in your favorite bookstores September 1, 2009. Google Bomb is the story of Sue Scheff and legal commentary from John W Dozier Jr.
Google Bomb, the book, will change the way you think about the web. The text follows:
Next up, Google Bomb, the book. The dramatic story of Sue Scheff as she takes the reader through her journey to an $11 million dollar court judgment against online attackers who turned their rage on Ms. Scheff and her business. John W Dozier Jr, a veteran of the Internet bubble as founder and Chairman of the Board of a venture backed e-commerce company, a top rated, preeminent attorney and internet law expert, surveys the landscape of online attacks, explains what happened to Sue, and what can happen to you today in the new world order. From hacking to spam impersonations, from defamation to cyberstalking, from copyright infringement to trademark theft, and from privacy invasions to the unleashing of Google bombs, Mr. Dozier takes you into the bowels of the online underworld, the mobosphere. You'll learn about the personalities of attackers, how to set up an early warning system, and the Top Ten steps you need to take today to protect yourself, your business, and your loved ones. Google Bomb is really a call to action, destined to be a turning point in the fight against online personal terrorists. Published by HCI, renowned for the chicken soup line of books. Available in bookstores by September 1, 2009. Pre-order it today on Amazon. And visit Dozier Internet Law for more information about the law of the web. Are you a victim of an online attack? Relief is coming. September first. It could be the first day of the rest of your life. God bless you and be safe out there.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:34 pm
Physicians Have Rights Too, by John W. Dozier
June 03, 2009
Any defamation lawyer with an expertise in online cybersmears knows how difficult navigating through a veritable mine field can be. Many of those who fight for online free speech insist that anyone being defamed can respond in our open marketplace of ideas and communications. But for doctors, that just isn't so. Because a federal law known as "HIPAA" prohibits them from discussing clients and their treatment. When a doc calls us, and wants to respond in a quality way to a prominent online complaint that is full of lies, it is hard to justify having to tell the doc as an online defamation lawyer with expertise in Internet defamation that he cannot respond.
It is an outrageous situation that needs to be corrected. Where is the marketplace of ideas if only one side can speak? If you are a physician, consider using a well crafted, customized patient non-disparagement provision in your treatment contract. Remember that HIPAA privacy provisions can be waived by contract. So when you call that defamation lawyer you'll at least have some leverage in negotiating a resolution with the patient or website. But be careful out there...some contracts are so one sided that the courts will likely not enforce them. A careful balance to protect yourself from online false attacks could be the cure.
June 03, 2009
Any defamation lawyer with an expertise in online cybersmears knows how difficult navigating through a veritable mine field can be. Many of those who fight for online free speech insist that anyone being defamed can respond in our open marketplace of ideas and communications. But for doctors, that just isn't so. Because a federal law known as "HIPAA" prohibits them from discussing clients and their treatment. When a doc calls us, and wants to respond in a quality way to a prominent online complaint that is full of lies, it is hard to justify having to tell the doc as an online defamation lawyer with expertise in Internet defamation that he cannot respond.
It is an outrageous situation that needs to be corrected. Where is the marketplace of ideas if only one side can speak? If you are a physician, consider using a well crafted, customized patient non-disparagement provision in your treatment contract. Remember that HIPAA privacy provisions can be waived by contract. So when you call that defamation lawyer you'll at least have some leverage in negotiating a resolution with the patient or website. But be careful out there...some contracts are so one sided that the courts will likely not enforce them. A careful balance to protect yourself from online false attacks could be the cure.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:35 pm
Google Destined For Collapse?, by John W. Dozier
June 04, 2009
A lawsuit has been filed against search engines for returning alleged defamatory results about the inventor of a vibrating toilet seat. Of course, any defamation lawyer would immediately recognize that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is on its face a complete defense to this type of claim. But as an online defamation lawyer specialist I have to wonder whether the issue has ever been truly tested in the cases filed against Google. I doubt it.
So, from a veteran defamation lawyer involved in the Section 230 wars, I have to ask the question I have never seen answered or raised before. Consider the state of things today. First, you lose your immunity for material editing of content. Second, the search engines, particularly Google, make subjective decisions on content placement all the time. Third, they do it, however, by automating the subjective editing through algorithms and applying their employees' personal decisions and prejudices to search results by grading or assigning "authority" through an automated and seemingly objective process (at least to the uninformed). Fourth, Google decides what will be presented in its own search results, and most importantly in what order that presentation will occur.
Can a business simply take subjective decisions on editing, turn them into objectively defined criteria functioning within a mathematical equation, and avoid becoming a content provider and losing Section 230 immunity? Probably not the way the statute is drafted today. Which means that when this lawsuit comes, it will be a bet the business case for Google. Because if they lose, they will likely have virtually unlimited and incalculable liability for defamation.
Think of it this way. The "miserable failure" Google bomb was pointing at the White House's George Bush and coming up at the top of the search results when that term was searched. Just after Obama took office, Google went in and removed the result since it was now pointing at Obama as a "miserable failure". This is the type of thing that happens with apparent impunity. And the defense offered by Google that it was a coincidental result of running an automated process to identify Google Bombs and remove them from the results is a bit less than convincing, but a clear example of how Google materially edits content.
As a defamation lawyer it is clear that within certain parameters Google must be able to function without fear of Section 230 immunity loss. They should be immune. Yet the existing law behind which so many hide today cuts both ways. It was passed at a time before Google and Web 2.0 and User Generated Content became major information delivery systems and processes.
It needs to be amended to protect legitimate service providers like search engines doing their job of indexing the web and creating structure out of mass confusion. I don't personally like the idea of search engines having this type of liability since it does not bode well for the free flow of truthful information. But Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away.
Is Google destined to lose its immunity for subjective editing decisions having a material impact on the content it presents? Possibly.
I bet that isn't figured into Google's market cap or valuation. But it should be.
June 04, 2009
A lawsuit has been filed against search engines for returning alleged defamatory results about the inventor of a vibrating toilet seat. Of course, any defamation lawyer would immediately recognize that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is on its face a complete defense to this type of claim. But as an online defamation lawyer specialist I have to wonder whether the issue has ever been truly tested in the cases filed against Google. I doubt it.
So, from a veteran defamation lawyer involved in the Section 230 wars, I have to ask the question I have never seen answered or raised before. Consider the state of things today. First, you lose your immunity for material editing of content. Second, the search engines, particularly Google, make subjective decisions on content placement all the time. Third, they do it, however, by automating the subjective editing through algorithms and applying their employees' personal decisions and prejudices to search results by grading or assigning "authority" through an automated and seemingly objective process (at least to the uninformed). Fourth, Google decides what will be presented in its own search results, and most importantly in what order that presentation will occur.
Can a business simply take subjective decisions on editing, turn them into objectively defined criteria functioning within a mathematical equation, and avoid becoming a content provider and losing Section 230 immunity? Probably not the way the statute is drafted today. Which means that when this lawsuit comes, it will be a bet the business case for Google. Because if they lose, they will likely have virtually unlimited and incalculable liability for defamation.
Think of it this way. The "miserable failure" Google bomb was pointing at the White House's George Bush and coming up at the top of the search results when that term was searched. Just after Obama took office, Google went in and removed the result since it was now pointing at Obama as a "miserable failure". This is the type of thing that happens with apparent impunity. And the defense offered by Google that it was a coincidental result of running an automated process to identify Google Bombs and remove them from the results is a bit less than convincing, but a clear example of how Google materially edits content.
As a defamation lawyer it is clear that within certain parameters Google must be able to function without fear of Section 230 immunity loss. They should be immune. Yet the existing law behind which so many hide today cuts both ways. It was passed at a time before Google and Web 2.0 and User Generated Content became major information delivery systems and processes.
It needs to be amended to protect legitimate service providers like search engines doing their job of indexing the web and creating structure out of mass confusion. I don't personally like the idea of search engines having this type of liability since it does not bode well for the free flow of truthful information. But Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away.
Is Google destined to lose its immunity for subjective editing decisions having a material impact on the content it presents? Possibly.
I bet that isn't figured into Google's market cap or valuation. But it should be.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:35 pm
Google Bomb Book Coming, by John W. Dozier
June 05, 2009
Google Bomb, the book, written by Sue Scheff and online defamation lawyer John W Dozier Jr, is coming soon. The final edits of Google Bomb are being finalized. One of the interesting aspects of the world of the mobosphere is organized attacks. This animation tells a story that is happening more or less daily in one form or another and this is covered extensively in Google Bomb. As a defamation lawyer, it is becoming common because I hear the stories every day. Attacking on the web to gain an economic benefit is closer to extortion than free speech.
June 05, 2009
Google Bomb, the book, written by Sue Scheff and online defamation lawyer John W Dozier Jr, is coming soon. The final edits of Google Bomb are being finalized. One of the interesting aspects of the world of the mobosphere is organized attacks. This animation tells a story that is happening more or less daily in one form or another and this is covered extensively in Google Bomb. As a defamation lawyer, it is becoming common because I hear the stories every day. Attacking on the web to gain an economic benefit is closer to extortion than free speech.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:36 pm
Defamation Book, by John W. Dozier
June 09, 2009
At Traverse Internet Law, we've been working hard turning back online attacks for our clients. John W Dozier Jr, President and Founder of Dozier Internet Law, has put together a top ten list of the personalities and characteristics of online attackers and scofflaws. You can read all about them in the Google Bomb book on online defamation coming soon. For now, here is an introduction, compliments of Dozier Internet Law.
Text follows:
June 09, 2009
At Traverse Internet Law, we've been working hard turning back online attacks for our clients. John W Dozier Jr, President and Founder of Dozier Internet Law, has put together a top ten list of the personalities and characteristics of online attackers and scofflaws. You can read all about them in the Google Bomb book on online defamation coming soon. For now, here is an introduction, compliments of Dozier Internet Law.
Text follows:
Google Bomb is coming by September first. One of the things you'll learn all about is ten scofflaw persons on the web. For those under attack, it is essential that you first identify who you are dealing with. The authors of Google Bomb have plenty of experience in identifying the characteristics of online scofflaws. This evaluation really helps when you are considering the many different strategies, tactics and actions available to the target of a vicious and false online attack. Here is a short list of scofflaws who frequent the web and wield the keyboard with malice.
The Pickpocket. He used to hang out on street corners waiting for the elderly to pass by.
The Wacko. Or, as most would refer to this type of character, a nut case.
The Druggie. A normal guy during the day, a terror at night after he gets his buzz going.
The Alien. From a land far away and untouchable.
The Nerd. Dork during the day, Casanova at night fueled by the power of anonymity.
The Rookie. Even his English teacher would be surprised by this 13 year old’s creative writing.
The Sadist. Not quite foaming from the mouth, but clearly enjoying causing great pain in others.
The Bankrupt. Nothing to lose, and he acts like it with vigor.
The Criminal. Protection rackets are the tool of choice, and organized crime in a new sense is both alive and well online.
The Mis-leader. Biased and prejudiced with an ulterior motive, all cleverly hidden from view so as to seem objective and fair.
Are you a victim of an online attack? Figure your attacker out first. Otherwise, if you try to deal with it things could get worse. Much worse. Google Bomb will tell you all about the landscape of this new battlefield, and arm you with the knowledge of Sue Scheff, the recipient of an $11.3 Million defamation judgment, and John W. Dozier Jr., a top rated internet law attorney. Both leading advocates for change.
Google bomb. There is a time to keep quiet and a time to speak. The time to speak is now.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier
by admin » Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:38 pm
Dozier Internet Law v. Ronald Riley with Public Citizen, by John W. Dozier
June 13, 2009
Does Public Citizen really not get it? Is Paul Alan Levy so blinded by a raging obsession with expanding free speech and attacking businesses that he honestly believes what he is saying? Or is possible Levy really, really does not understand?
Dozier Internet Law filed suit against Levy's long-standing friend and client, Ronald Riley, for trademark infringement. Looks like they have been working together for well over five years.
The Dozier Internet Law lawsuit has been mentioned in two recent news articles and had become, until the entire lawsuit was read, a hot topic defending Riley and criticizing us because, according to Paul Alan Levy, the lawsuit is about the failure of Riley to link to the Dozier website but instead linked elsewhere when using the law firm name.
Well, it is not the destination of the link that is the biggest part of this lawsuit. Not by a long shot.
So, for those journalists who have a nasty habit of taking a short cut, the next time you go to Paul Alan Levy and Public Citizen for insight into a legal case, be sure to ask a trademark infringement attorney who has experience in trademark matters arising on the internet. An experienced trademark infringement lawyer would have pointed out the following:
The Dozier Internet Law lawsuit sets out as one example of trademark infringement because the link to the firm's website pointed to another page. The lawsuit states that "this is but one example of the many abuses...".
So, what is this lawsuit about?
1) Riley's anchored text links with the Dozier name are coded so that they repeat the name multiple times and then lead, of course, to an error page that he uses to direct traffic to his commercial site. This is "keyword stuffing" and trademark infringement.
2) Riley tells the search engines that this site is not a criticism site but is the "Dozier Internet Law" website by using Dozier's business name and page title and meta tag search engine optimization tactics to mislead the search engines.
3) Riley has repeated the Dozier name over and over and is "keyword stuffing" the content of the page with the Dozier name while at the same time keyword stuffing the HTML code of the page as explained in paragraph 1.
4) Riley had two pages of hidden text with Dozier's names on the page and the background set in the same color as the words. This is hidden keyword stuffing, a favorite unethical practice of spammers and scammers, and got this site banned by Google until he removed them well into this litigation.
So, does Levy just not get it? Does he have any background in SEO or online business to figure this out? Does he have any objective resource to turn to? Evidently not.
Oh, Riley nets about $250,000 from his website properties every year. Is this site fair criticism? You can't necessarily tell by looking at it today. But if you really understand the web, you can figure it out. The question is whether the Dozier Law Firm trademarks are being infringed. Riley offers services to many of the same sorts of clients we represent, and he drives eyeballs to his commercial site from this site optimized with the Dozier law firm name. But that is not where it ends. Not by a long shot. He runs a prominent textual ad for a major competitor, a private law firm that supports Riley, and remarkably runs two separate ads on the page for none other than his own lawyers in this case...Public Citizen, with whom we compete for defense work.
The last fact, of course, jumps off the page for those who understand legal ethics. But then again, when you go change a website and try to pass it off to a federal judge as the original, get caught, and get tossed out of court, I'm not surprised. Paul Alan Levy and Public Citizen need to stop obsessing about business following honest and fair business practices and start cleaning up their own house.
So, for you journalists who think you can call Levy and get even a remotely fair and accurate portrayal of the issues in a case, you should know better. Levy is unreliable. Perhaps it's intentional. Likely it is pure ignorance. No matter. For you it means lame reporting with a bad source delivering bad information.
June 13, 2009
Does Public Citizen really not get it? Is Paul Alan Levy so blinded by a raging obsession with expanding free speech and attacking businesses that he honestly believes what he is saying? Or is possible Levy really, really does not understand?
Dozier Internet Law filed suit against Levy's long-standing friend and client, Ronald Riley, for trademark infringement. Looks like they have been working together for well over five years.
The Dozier Internet Law lawsuit has been mentioned in two recent news articles and had become, until the entire lawsuit was read, a hot topic defending Riley and criticizing us because, according to Paul Alan Levy, the lawsuit is about the failure of Riley to link to the Dozier website but instead linked elsewhere when using the law firm name.
Well, it is not the destination of the link that is the biggest part of this lawsuit. Not by a long shot.
So, for those journalists who have a nasty habit of taking a short cut, the next time you go to Paul Alan Levy and Public Citizen for insight into a legal case, be sure to ask a trademark infringement attorney who has experience in trademark matters arising on the internet. An experienced trademark infringement lawyer would have pointed out the following:
The Dozier Internet Law lawsuit sets out as one example of trademark infringement because the link to the firm's website pointed to another page. The lawsuit states that "this is but one example of the many abuses...".
So, what is this lawsuit about?
1) Riley's anchored text links with the Dozier name are coded so that they repeat the name multiple times and then lead, of course, to an error page that he uses to direct traffic to his commercial site. This is "keyword stuffing" and trademark infringement.
2) Riley tells the search engines that this site is not a criticism site but is the "Dozier Internet Law" website by using Dozier's business name and page title and meta tag search engine optimization tactics to mislead the search engines.
3) Riley has repeated the Dozier name over and over and is "keyword stuffing" the content of the page with the Dozier name while at the same time keyword stuffing the HTML code of the page as explained in paragraph 1.
4) Riley had two pages of hidden text with Dozier's names on the page and the background set in the same color as the words. This is hidden keyword stuffing, a favorite unethical practice of spammers and scammers, and got this site banned by Google until he removed them well into this litigation.
So, does Levy just not get it? Does he have any background in SEO or online business to figure this out? Does he have any objective resource to turn to? Evidently not.
Oh, Riley nets about $250,000 from his website properties every year. Is this site fair criticism? You can't necessarily tell by looking at it today. But if you really understand the web, you can figure it out. The question is whether the Dozier Law Firm trademarks are being infringed. Riley offers services to many of the same sorts of clients we represent, and he drives eyeballs to his commercial site from this site optimized with the Dozier law firm name. But that is not where it ends. Not by a long shot. He runs a prominent textual ad for a major competitor, a private law firm that supports Riley, and remarkably runs two separate ads on the page for none other than his own lawyers in this case...Public Citizen, with whom we compete for defense work.
The last fact, of course, jumps off the page for those who understand legal ethics. But then again, when you go change a website and try to pass it off to a federal judge as the original, get caught, and get tossed out of court, I'm not surprised. Paul Alan Levy and Public Citizen need to stop obsessing about business following honest and fair business practices and start cleaning up their own house.
So, for you journalists who think you can call Levy and get even a remotely fair and accurate portrayal of the issues in a case, you should know better. Levy is unreliable. Perhaps it's intentional. Likely it is pure ignorance. No matter. For you it means lame reporting with a bad source delivering bad information.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 36183
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests