Dozier Internet Law, by John W. Dozier

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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.

[admin]

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:

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]

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.

[admin]

Jury Increases Verdict in Music Copyright Case Retrial, by John W. Dozier

June 19, 2009

We have been following the progress of the music copyright infringement cases over the years, often finding our firm defending those who receive the lawsuits or demand letters. The first case to go to trial resulted in a verdict of $222,000. All of the consumer rights groups jumped on the result, criticizing everything about the trial and taking the lawyer for the defendant to task for alleged incompetence. With new, supposedly expert, lawyers provided by, or supported by, the consumer rights groups and other free speech related coalitions, the Judge in the original trial agreed to a re-trial. Dozier Internet Law is battling these extremist groups all the time, and while we try to protect the intellectual property of businesses, these groups seem to always be supporting the right of others to take this property. Kind of a Robin Hood philosophy better suited for socialism than capitalism.

So, it would come as no surprise to Dozier Internet Law, frankly, that the retrial with these consumer rights minded copyright lawyers (at least that is how they are characterized online) would result in a jury verdict for the defendant. But that is not the way it has turned out. Looks like the case was not as weak as the consumer rights and anti-business forces believed.

The new jury verdict returned is almost ten times greater than the initial verdict, leaving the Defendant destitute for sure. The original verdict was for $9,250 per song. The new verdict is for $80,000 each song. The verdict has increased from $222,000 to $1.92 Million. And these groups, headed up by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are again attacking the jury verdict.

So, do they appeal and fight the case? It's hard to attack their own hand picked lawyer this time. And how much more will the next jury verdict be? Well done, consumer rights groups. Nice message to send out. The consumer rights in-house lawyers, (not the private firm representing the defendant), constantly spread the mantra that they will fight for you. But do you really want them? The last I looked, the leading consumer rights groups like EFF and Public Citizen didn't appear to have a single lawyer that has ever tried a case to a jury. If there is one on staff, I'll leave the comments open so you can list them.

At Dozier Internet Law, we love going against the in-house lawyers for the ACLU, Public Citizen and EFF and other consumer rights type groups. They can sound great in press releases, and public commentary, and legal briefs. But you should see them in discovery, litigation and before a jury. And that's why they have no experience with jury trials. They are scared to try a case. They just settle cases in the quiet of the night. Because they are scared to lose and know that if they try the case, that is the likely result. And having a client get slammed for a $2 Million Judgment, and thereby ruining her financial situation for life, is hardly worth the principle in their minds.

That's the notable part of this case. The case got tried to a jury. They were forced into trial given the circumstances. Ouch. Nice result.

[admin]

Online Retailer Lawyer Offers Top Tips For Data Loss, by John W. Dozier

June 20, 2009

John W Dozier Jr. spoke at the annual Internet Retailer conference in June on data protection and managing the liabilities that can arise. Faced with a data loss, an online retailer or marketer or other business entity is often faced with notification laws, liability to banks for losses, FTC and State Attorney General investigations, and class action lawsuits. Given these exposures, most online businesses simply cannot survive to live another day. So John W Dozier Jr offered four suggestions to avoid and manage the risk of data loss:

1) Beware the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: While your biggest concern may be the loss of credit card information, the fact is that much litigation is coming from inside jobs. Maintain your data internally on a "need to access" basis, and be vigilant in guarding against employee and contractor misappropriation. Don't let those with access to your data do any affiliate marketing on the side, for instance, and have strong written contracts with employees and contractors that will discourage the "borrowing" of your data.

2) Use Salt Liberally: Place your own (preferably fictitious) personally identifiable information in your databases so if they are stolen you will be the recipient of the end use of the data. Banks have been doing this for years. It's called "salting". Sprinkle into your databases information like an anonymous email address so if your data is stolen you'll get an email if someone decides to spam with it.

3) Put it on the Other Guy: No, don't just blame someone else. That's nothing new. Actually anticipate this issue arising and guard against assuming liability brought about by others. Make sure you have indemnification provisions in your web development, web hosting and other third party contracts so if the access is not your fault, you can look to a third party for reimbursement of your losses.

4) Under Promise, Over Deliver: Make sure that your privacy practices are well understood internally and are accurately set forth in your privacy policy. Make sure that your privacy policy provisions do not conflict with your User Agreement and other contracts. And then make sure that your website content is consistent with your Privacy Policy and privacy practices. This is where you will get nailed by the Federal Trade Commission and others even if the loss was not due to your own neglect. Don't promise more than you are prepared to deliver. And in doubt, under promise. For most businesses, you can offer up no promises about data security in your privacy policies and avoid this contract based obligation. Other laws may apply if you have a data loss, but at least you will have limited your exposure.

Traverse Internet Law specializes in the law of the web representing businesses. Contact one of our online retailer lawyers for a risk-free consultation.

[admin]

What Can Get You Sued?, by John W. Dozier

June 21, 2009

As defamation lawyers we are often involved in analyzing a potentially defamatory post. In today's world, it is getting harder and harder to figure out whether some blog comment or post is a statement of fact. Statements of fact can now be couched in statements of opinion and craftfully presented so that Google picks up the factual words and presents those it is results. It's a game that brings into play issues unique to the law of the Internet and issues your typical defamation lawyer will have a hard time grasping.

At Traverse Internet Law, our defamation lawyers deal with this type of analysis often.

[admin]

Internet Lawyer Thoughts, by John W. Dozier

June 24, 2009

Traverse Internet Law has launched a new Internet lawyer blog. The blog will be discussing whatever comes to mind as it relates to the development and growth of the web, the underlying philosophies and driving forces, and the challenges of issues yet to be resolved. And issues yet to be recognized. We'll be offering the unique perspective of an Internet lawyer on the inside, with a slant and perspective of a businessman confronted with the many challenges that inevitably lurk in the Wild West of the online world. We will cover unintended consequences or unanticipated results from recent web developments, and try to see into the future as to where we are all headed. Drop by the Internet lawyer blog and post a comment. And if you run into a particularly difficult situation don't forget that Traverse Internet Law helps solve problems.

[admin]

How To Hire An Internet Lawyer, by John W. Dozier

June 25, 2009

At Traverse Internet Law, we field calls from new client prospects constantly looking to hire an Internet lawyer. Obviously Traverse Internet Law isn't the only option out there. Your search for the right Internet lawyer does not have to be frustrating. It just takes some time and effort on your part.

Traverse Internet Law focuses on challenging, complex, and high profile matters. If you are looking to have an Internet lawyer draft a user agreement or privacy policy, there are many options that could be less expensive than our firm. We focus on an holistic approach and would work for a client to assure legal compliance, and as part of that process we do draft these contracts. But it is for firm clients only...those clients with high expectations for a robust approach and those clients with whom Traverse Internet Law has a track record or at least those clients who are committed to quality and thoroughness. Understandably there are those in need who are looking for a quick contract on a set fee. We don't do that. Others do.

Traverse Internet Law is a group of Internet lawyers, as well as litigation and trial lawyers. We might be the firm to hire when you get in a jam or have someone trying to pull a fast one on your business.

We are putting together a guide of sorts on this blog...Internet Lawyer...to give you some guidance and a step by step approach to finding the right internet lawyer. Keep up with our ten suggestions for hiring the right internet lawyer and you'll find that it is a lot easier process than you might have imagined to find the right fit.

There is a size that fits for all.