Dozier Internet Law, PC

My Two Cents (Sense?) Worth

Welcome to the Dozier Internet Law blog, our little corner of the web. There is no doubt talk radio is ultra-conservative. On the flip side, online legal commentary is ultra-liberal. If you are looking for the opposite perspective on the law of the web than you find from the pontifications of the entrenched ring of civil libertarians, self appointed intellectuals, and liberal minded professors, you've arrived at the right place. I am a conversative commentator on the law of the web, one of the very few online who is yet to be derided into submission and anonymity by the "free speechers" attacking any speech they don't agree with. Our law firm, Dozier Internet Law, protects business interests on the web. We pursue hackers, sue those infringing on intellectual property, and protect the reputations of our clients in the online world. We are pro-business and we fight hard to protect the business of the web every day. We're proud to be pursuing the scofflaws of the web for business interests every day. And if we are considered by some to be the thought leaders of the conservative, pro-business interests, then so be it. You won't find us going out and inciting our "mobosphere" friends to launch web attacks against the commentators and lawyers on the other side of an issue, though. That is a strategy, tactic and practice reserved for the liberal "free speechers"...those that fight to preserve and expand free speech, but aggressively attack the speech of anyone daring to disagree with them.

The content of this blog is not legal advice, should not be relied upon as such, and you should certainly retain a high quality Internet law attorney for advice and guidance on any Internet law issues.  And in satisfaction of lawyer ethics rules, please be advised that CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE OR MATTER, AND PRIOR CASE OR MATTER RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE A SIMILAR RESULT IN THE FUTURE.

Dozier Internet Law on The Scary and Unknown Weapon of Contributory Copyright Infringement

Dozier Internet Law handles alot of e-commerce and website legal audits. That means that we review a website and e-commerce business and "get it legal". That is becoming more and more difficult because we have to look into the future and figure out where legal doctrines are headed and what the popular lawsuits will be about in two or three years. Because, as our clients learn, what they do today may not have an impact on them for years. It would be a shame to be doing something today that you learn three years from now was illegal.

And to do this effectively Dozier Internet Law, as a litigation law firm, often sees the evolving issues very early on. Our Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report serves as a monitor and advance early warning avoidance system, in a sense, for web businesses to understand what will get you sued. But you really have to live the law of the web day in and day out, have a firm grasp of technology, be intimately familiar with the business of the web, and have a great imagination to see the future. We don't claim to be perfect, but here is some food for thought on a legal risk that could lead to your company being sued for copyright infringement.

Under Section 512 "safe harbor" protection, a business can avoid copyright infringement liability if you do certain things at certain times. So, if you have a music site, and you follow the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provisions, you likely won't be sued or have liability unless your site is reliant in some material respect on the copyright infringement occurring. Under the doctrine of "contributory copyright infringement", liability for copyright infringement extends to business partners who are intentionally inducing or encouraging the direct infringement. So, if you know or should know of the infringing conduct, are advertising on a site that is carrying copyright infringing materials, you are providing services and support for the infringing site, you are a payment processor or even a web host or web developer, or you are somehow monetarily benefiting from the traffic at the site, you may be asked in a not so gracious way to assist the courts in defining who is liable as a contributory copyright infringer in the online world. And these lawsuits will be filed against individuals even though the small business is a corporation. That's a pretty scary possibility. But that is where I see things headed, and the only issue will be where the courts will draw the line of liability...what concepts, doctrines and rules of law will be adopted from the case law to apply to an online business world operating in an entirely new way? No one knows. But we can make an educated and informed guess. And that is what we at Dozier Internet Law do just about every day.

Sure, it's guesswork. If you can't see the trees because of the forest, this arena is not a place for you as a business person. As Internet lawyers we have to not only see the trees, but the saplings that will become the forest. And sometimes we have to see the seeds that will become the saplings that will become the trees that will become the forest.

If you want to avoid liability for contributory copyright infringement you need to know a lot about the business practices of your customers, business partners, and affiliate marketers. Pleading ignorance may be a successful defense, and I am sure one that will be used in virtually every case by the defendants. If you have a six figure legal budget to fight the lawsuit you may like your chances. But the smart thing to do is to make an informed decision. We help with that.

Dozier Internet Law: Blogger Reputations Ruined

At Dozier Internet Law we are constantly addressing the problem of false and defamatory attacks against clients on blogs. I'll be lecturing on the issue of online defamation to Virginia lawyers this summer in a course sponsored by the Virginia Law Foundation, governed by representatives of the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia Bar Association, and seven of Virginia's law schools. One of the interesting things I plan on doing is offering an outline of a blogosphere attack, and I'll really try to get to the motivation and mentality of "attack bloggers". They are growing in numbers everyday. While the blogosphere denies the existence of the miscreants and scofflaws within their community, once in a while you actually hear one admit what we at Dozier Internet Law already know. Take a look at this posting from a popular business social networking site in response to a question about how to build a business with a blog:

"2). Pick an enemy and attack them hard. The point is to galvanize people. This WILL lead to traffic."

Controversies and outrageous claims draw attention. That means eyeballs. And that traffic leads to more business, or more revenue, for the blogger. It is not hard to see how this works, but it is unusual to get such a blatant admission from a prominent blog professional. "Attack bloggers" need to be reined in. We are having pretty good success dealing with these types without having to file lawsuits all the time, but when it comes to push, we usually will pull the trigger and sue the "attack blogger". It's not free speech to create outrageous lies and propagate them all over the web. So, if you get a communication from us, be it a letter, a copy of a lawsuit, or a telephone call, consider the consequences that are about to ensue. The great majority of you already get the picture and agree to our demands. Smart move.

And, for many of those intellectuals who relish this new toy called the web, and you are in high school or college, or have a life and a career and an employer, consider how it is going to look when, for the rest of your life, a lawsuit describing your misconduct in vivid and creative terms shows up on the first page of Google results for your name. Do you honestly think that a business is going to take a chance on hiring someone who has exhibited such poor judgment and inappropriate conduct? No. The business is going to move you to the bottom of the stack of applicants.

So, when you get a communication from us, understand the consequences. These lawsuits will show up on the front page of Google results under your name. SEO is not the sole province of bloggers, by the way. While your lawyers, particularly those involved with the public interest groups, use your case to gain attention and raise contributions, your reputation is being ruined forever. Your reputation as an employee, your reputation as a college applicant, your reputation as a job applicant, your reputation as a private person, your reputation as a husband, and your reputation as a father or mother. Maybe you won't be confronted with it, but the impact will likely be profound, from prospective employers passing your resume by to parents avoiding you at school functions. It will happen. I tell clients that the problem blogger isn't always found in the Dozier Internet Law Blogger Persona List because we don't consider the immature or unsophisticated individual as a "scofflaw" blogger.

But, for those with something to lose today or something to lose in the future...beware that the "poetic license" you thought you had will likely turn out to be a trap door into reputation hell.

Dozier Internet Law: Law of PPC Advertising

I'll be speaking this week at the Click Quality Counsel on the law of PPC advertising. We'll post the Powerpoint on the Dozier Internet Law site shortly. At a high level, I go through the primary legal issues (trademark, domain name and false advertising) involved with a PPC ad. The four issues involve the use of a competitor's trademark in a search term, ad title, ad description, and url presented in the ad. The lesson to take away is that this is an unsettled area of law for the most part, and each situation turns on the unique facts involved and the way the ad is viewed in its totality to the consumer. There were at least four lawsuits filed in the past 45 days between businesses, but most litigants are avoiding naming Google as a "contributory infringement" defendant. When you go after Google, expect not only to have to incur huge legal expenses but also expect that their good lawyer friends over at Public Citizen will once again come in and file briefs supporting Google's position that there is no contributory trademark infringement liability, a dubious position in my opinion. As an aside, it looks to me like Public Citizen and Google's in-house IP counsel are trading legal support back and forth...kind of a "you scratch our back and we will scratch yours". It will be interesting to see how long this honeymoon of mutual admiration and support lasts since there are clearly some issues they should clash on relating to behavioral marketing and data.   

Dozier Internet Law represents businesses involved in PPC disputes and we assist businesses in understanding the risks so good business decisions can be made. A quality risk assessment involves understanding a number of factors that go beyond the law in a strict sense. I think of it as a pragmatist's perspective. I think the lesson learned, and you will see this in the slideshow going up on the Dozier Internet Law site, is to be very careful in the PPC world. Sure, the odds are low you will get sued. But when you do...you are paying expensive IP trial lawyers, and using expensive expert witnesses, in an expensive Federal court, dealing with an evolving, complex area of law. That's a recipe for disaster for the small business-a recipe that almost always carries with it individual or personal liability for the owners of the business even if you have a corporation. Ouch.

Dozier Internet Law: How Dozier Internet Law Shut Down The Blog Professor and Librarian

Once upon a time there was a professor at a prominent Eastern university who taught blogging as a course for undergraduates. Dozier Internet Law was hired to get a section of his blog, hosted on a University server, taken down since it was focused on attacking our business client. So we did not go directly to him. We went directly to the President of the University. And the President of the University went to the General Counsel of the University. Not only did the blog come down, but Mr. Blog Professor agreed to never mention our client's name again...and all without a lawsuit.

Once upon a time there was a librarian. She mentioned in a post on a site, and then in her own blog, that our business client was an alleged "scam operation". Dozier Internet Law approached her, explained the realities of life to her, she ran off and got the assistance of one of the prominent free speech groups, and they promptly caved in to our demands in full. No lawsuit was filed. She is to never mention our client's business name again, and all of her posts and blogs were pulled off the web forever.

Professors and Librarians. The Bastions of Free Speech. In both instances they had legal counsel. In neither instance was a lawsuit filed. In both instances all of the posts critical of our client were removed from the web forever. Both of the bloggers agreed to never speak, or allow others to speak on their blogs, about our clients again. That's results.

So every time a "learned professor" spouts off about free speech, understand that he or she is in a survival mode. Because while the general public may not know about the many matters we handle against the professorial types, the word has likely spread like wildfire through the halls of academia that if they think they can hide behind their institutions or some free speech lawyers like Public Citizen, they are wrong.

If you receive a letter from us you are usually being invited to resolve a matter through appropriate and reasonable discussion and negotiation. If the issue becomes public, you have a big problem. If the matter leads to litigation, you have a bigger problem. If you are lucky enough to convince one of the public interest groups to take up your case, you really have a big problem. Ask these public interest groups how much money they have in a fund to pay for a judgment rendered against you. The answer is Zilch. They are taking your case to get publicity, incite the passions and prejudices of their constituency and raise more money...and all of the risk of the outcome of the litigation is on your shoulders. When a financial judgment comes down, you have to pay it. And, when someone "Googles" your name it is likely they will read all about your misconduct and the lawsuit and the judgment on the first page of results for the rest of your career, and possibly your life. That's why disputes get resolved privately and confidentially...and why the public interest groups make private disputes highly visible and public. Lawyers owe a duty to always try to act in the best interests of their client. Do public interest lawyers like Public Citizen act in your best interests when faced with a dispute? Or do they act in their own self interests, turning private matters into highly publicized public issues to gain traction in fundraising so they can continue to have a job and pay their bills?

Dozier Internet Law: Dozier Internet Law Legislation Update

Dozier Internet Law is following a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives. The cause of so much proposed legislation? Failure of the industry to self regulate.

The FTC recently promulgated the “Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles”, government’s effort to gain some reasonable control over personally identifiable data being used for advertising purposes. At the same time privacy advocates were pushing for the establishment of a “Do Not Track Registry” for online behavior tracking. Congress and state legislatures didn’t seem impressed by the new regulatory schemes.

The state of Washington passed the first “anti-spyware” legislation several years ago, and now Congress is today considering a similar law. You’d be surprised by the broad nature of the definition of “spyware” and since Dozier Internet Law litigated what appears to be the first case involving violation of a state "anti-spyware" law we have a pretty thorough understanding of the broad interpretation being embraced. There are proposed laws working their way through legislatures and Congress requiring data breach notifications to those affected by data loss, strengthening “security freeze statutes”, restricting Social Security Number transfer and publication, restricting the ability to maintain data, and requiring those responsible for data theft to reimburse financial institutions. Also at the state level there are laws being considered that would require opt-in for data sharing and the establishment of “do not sell lists” for personally identifiable data.

What does today’s environment tell us? It tells us that we, as an industry, missed the boat. We missed the opportunity to self regulate: to establish privacy policy standards with teeth, to establish data security standards and meaningfully enforce them, to buy and sell data and leads in a responsible way and treat the information as if it was our own, to be forthright about what data we are tracking…and keeping…and storing…and sharing…and packaging…and using…and selling.

I just finished an article on this subject for Practical E-Commerce Magazine. Lack of control, good judgment and discretion has its price. Great industries self police to avoid governmental intervention. Visit Dozier Internet Law and you can also review the lawsuits that are being filed in Federal courts at the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report.

Dozier Internet Law: Court Attacks Immunity

"The message to website operators is clear: If you don’t encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune," the 9th Circuit Court held in the Roommates.com case.

The erosion of the immunity provisions for interactive service providers picks up some serious momentum as the Courts now begin picking apart the broad immunity interpretation taken by free speech advocates. When the immunity for the posting by third parties was passed as part of revisions to the Communications Decency Act you could see problems on the horizon. Bloggers, website owners, and investors, all buttressed by the commentaries from liberal, free speech advocates who even today control much of the dialog online, adopted an extremely broad interpretation of the applicability of this law. At Dozier Internet Law, we view the decision as fully supported by the law, and it is noteworthy that this Court is widely viewed as the most liberal and free speech oriented Circuit Court in the country. Immunity, at least in the 9th Circuit, is no longer available to those sites "encouraging" the posting of illegal content, and this now moves squarely into question a broad range of sites making a living on encouraging the posting of defamatory information. Many of these types of sites are represented by various "public interest" groups like Public Citizen, and Dozier Internet Law's position in many of the ongoing disputes relating to immunity is once again turning out to be correct. Expect to see the ACLU, EFF and Public Citizen, their lawyers and all of their professor supporters with blogs start attacking this decision or the interpretation of it by pro-business forces.

Of course, the Court does not decide matters in a vacuum. The reality is that the immunity provisions were being abused, in a very public way, likely resulting from the very public encouragement, support, and "legal advice" coming from the liberal left wingers. Dozier Internet Law has been engaged in an ongoing debate about abusive sites, and you can read the Dozier Internet Law letter and related comments to Public Citizen to understand more fully how the immunity law has been abused with the support of free speech lawyers.

This decision, coming on the heels of the setback in Congress for bloggers and discussed in the Dozier Internet Law Blog last week, is representative of the movement of the pendulum back to sanity. We saw this coming. I blogged on this months ago. If the free speech public interest groups could have made an objective assessment of the environment and understood the consequences of emboldening the blogosphere into more and more egregious misconduct, the Court and Congress may not be reacting to curb the lawlessness as aggressively. These groups have never been good at objectivity; but they do excel at overstatement fueled by a fanaticism towards expanding individual rights and restricting the protections available to businesses. While other industries, when faced with an obvious and growing problem with its denizens, would be exploring "self regulation" to avoid legislative and judicial activism, these "free speechers" have encouraged attacks. Dozier Internet Law Scofflaw Bloggers describes some of the scofflaws that comprise the constituency of these groups.

So, as we move forward, and the immunity doctrine continues to erode, let's see if these public interest and free speech bloggers and lawyers keep telling their "mobosphere" that it is okay to encourage illegality...and participate in, encourage and facilitate defamatory attacks. We know of at least one specific instance in which a lawyer for a major free speech group directly communicated with, and encouraged, a blogger to publish defamatory statements.

Scofflaw bloggers, free speech civil libertarians, "public interest" groups, and liberal law professors espousing with self righteous indignation any restriction on the concept that "information yearns to be free" will continue to suffer these setbacks. And one has to wonder how this could have been avoided by the thoughtful and measured treatment of the issue. Would we be seeing this movement by the courts, the executive branch in New Jersey, and Congress if the free speech interests were encouraging self policing, honesty and integrity instead of actively encouraging and, indeed, promoting the problem?

On a final note, there is no immunity law in the UK, and jurisdiction for the publication of comments here in the US may be asserted there. A six figure verdict was just entered for a "mobosphere" attack. Let's see what these free speech groups have to say about exporting their notions and concepts to the rest of the world so that their constituents are protected. A full retreat is in the offing, assuming that these revisionists to our First Amendment rights can see more storm clouds on the horizon blowing in from the UK. Huge and unlikely assumption...I'm afraid.

Dozier Internet Law and Googling

First, I'll disclose that I, as well as others associated with Dozier Internet Law , own Google stock.

On April 24 I'll be speaking at the monthly "Click Quality Council" meeting. This is a group organized by Click Forensics, the guys who you see on some of the high profile news channels discussing click and impression fraud for PPC advertising. We'll discuss some legal issues relating to PPC advertising, including recent lawsuits filed alleging trademark infringement allegedly resulting from buying keywords of competitor's trademarks to trigger PPC ads. There have been three filed among businesses in the last month alone in Federal Courts in the US. They will be going up in the casenotes on the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report today. But I'll reiterate right now that this is an unsettled area of law, and despite recent conference speakers clearing this as a legal tactic, the lawsuits speak for themselves. You may be right, and you may be wrong. Does your business want to incur the huge legal expense to find out?

What I find most interesting is that Google is not, of course, a party to these lawsuits. Maybe they will get involved and file briefs in the cases if they get to the merits. But they don't control or select the lawyers or facts of the cases, and if Federal Courts start recognizing this practice as trademark infringement then Google has a revenue stream it will probably lose due to legal exposure pressing the advertisers. It would be interesting to see how much revenue is attributable to these types of advertising buys. There is a good question for the analysts.

But what is not a good question, it seems to me, is the potential negative impact of click volume reduction. Any experienced advertiser (our law firm spends between $100,000 and $500,000 annually on Google PPC) knows exactly what matters, which is conversion rate and revenue per customer. So, assuming revenue per customer is a constant (which I concede is a big question in today's environment), the number of quality clicks is what counts. And as quality improves, advertisers are willing to bid more for each term. Using the Adwords interface and related analytics products, the quality of the visitors to a site is pretty simple to see even for the small, small advertiser. 

I'll admit I don't know about all of the quality initiatives Google has undertaken, but I do know that when I look at our statistics I look for the overall cost of PPC, "goals" attained, and the cost for each such goal conversion; and I don't really worry about the overall number of PPC clicks coming to the Dozier Internet Law site. In other words, I am concerned with the cost per quality lead, and the better the quality the more I am willing to pay for our ad to be presented when a keyword is entered into Google's search function. So, for those analysts trying to figure this out, call a retailer you follow, and pull some strings to get some insight into this issue. Then, instead of relying upon raw volume statistics you can draw revenue conclusions based upon the money that advertisers are willing to pay for each click. My guess is that you will find the cost is steadily increasing for each PPC clickthrough. You might also take a look at the average costs associated with keywords on the various PPC search solutions, and while the high volume Google delivers influences price to some degree, there is no explanation for the vast pricing differences between the bottom tier PPC engines and Google except the quality of the traffic. And as quality increases, price will follow.

Of course, the analysts live quarter to quarter, so the real question is how quickly prices will increase when quality increases. My experience tells me almost immediately. But, we'll see. Again, I own Google stock. And I don't know the first thing about the impact of the downturn on advertising budgets or the like. Maybe Google is going to miss their quarterly numbers badly. I doubt it will be due to a lower click volume, though.

Dozier Internet Law Reports Congress Slams Door On Bloggers

Dozier Internet Law reported late last year that Congress was considering passing the "Free Flow of Information Act" that would have created a loophole wide enough for every scofflaw blogger to slide through. The proposed bill is a proposed "shield law" that would allow "journalists", including bloggers, to hide behind their "sources" under many circumstances. This would have opened up the opportunity for bloggers running the extortion scams to create their own postings and comments attacking businesses and then allow them to hide any evidence as to the source of the posts. I blogged about the unanticipated and unintended consequences that would ensue. The Dozier Internet Law expose' on the personas of scofflaw bloggers and our Dozier Internet Law extortion site documentation found their way to Washington, and while we have no idea what direct impact our perspective had on the debate, our friends working to "kill" the bill report that it now applies only to journalists earning "a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for sustantial financial gain". Obviously that was much better, but then the bill was also amended to provide that it was not to be construed as applying to civil defamation, slander, or libel claims under State laws. Since these are the primary bases for legal action against the extortion racket bloggers and other bloggers with little regard for truth, let's chalk this one up, so far, as a victory for business. I think Congress, at least the House, sent a message to the blogosphere that free speech has its limits, and if you are going to run a criminal enterprise, or break the law by defaming a business, you are on your own. I guess the free speech groups were due a setback, although I don't immediately recall any victories the liberal, anti-business forces have enjoyed since the late 1990s on the legislative front. Let's hope the House version becomes law, because the Senate version is weaker in protecting businesses on this point. Anything could happen, of course, if the conflicting bills make it up to conference committee.

In other federal legislative news, there are rumblings from the Federal Trade Commission about a "do not track registry" on the heels of the "Behavioral Advertising Privacy Principles" it recently promulgated. Use of personal and behavioral tracking data for online marketing and sales is certainly going to be a hot issue. At Dozier Internet Law we expect the privacy and anonymity interests (ie. ACLU and Public Citizen) to be going heads up against some powerful online marketers and retailers. Federal spyware legislation is working its way through Congress also. Dozier Internet Law defended the first business accused of violating the first spyware law in the US several years ago, and I can tell you that the definition of what is considered "spyware" will likely come as an unwelcome surprise to many businesses if the law passes as is. There are also data breach notification and social security number disclosure bills in the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

Briefly, on the state level, there is the ongoing "at distance sales tax" issue in New York, state data breach notification bills, at least one data storage bill that creates liability for businesses for loss by their financial institutions (credit card merchants), various social security protection and disclosure bills, and a "do not sell" bill that requires an opt-in to permit an online business to sell personal information it has gathered.

I believe it was Thomas More who said that information is power. Some of the most successful online business enterprises have figured out how to take data, convert it into information, and in so doing build a lucrative business. At Dozier Internet Law we'll continue to work to make sure businesses are dealt with fairly, and the very idea of limiting the use of information in business is of course problematic. When I testified before the US Senate there was a concern about allowing private taxpayer information to move securely in an electronic manner. That testimony was ten years ago. Looks like data protection is still at the forefront of the debate, and it will probably take another ten years to iron it all out to everyone's satisfaction.

If you want to keep up with many of the latest significant lawsuits filed around the country dealing with the Internet, you may want to check out the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report. Then you'll have the latest news from both the legislatures and the courts...

Dozier Internet Law Impersonators

Dozier Internet Law has impersonators. And we also have fraudsters. You'd be surprised how often we get an email from someone pointing us to a site or blog/forum posting in which the claim is made that we are the attorneys for a party. A party that, by the way, we have never heard of. Some sites do this to establish credibility and show they are "connected". Others do this as an attempt to legitimize their position in whatever legal debate is raging that day. Still others steal the use of our name so they can get the benefit of our brand at no cost. Some bloggers and forum posters impersonate us with the intention of attacking our firm. One of the more brazen examples of this impersonation issue follows. I received this letter today from an affiliate marketer we met at Affiliate Summit. A copy follows...don't be fooled by this chicanery. If you receive a letter like this, it is not from Dozier Internet Law or our predecessor law firm from five years ago, Dozier and Associates.

November 2, 2007

Sender Information:

BattleTattle.com

Law offices of Dozier and Associates

P.O. Box 74993

New York, NY 10039 US

Recipient Information:

(Name and Address Redacted)

Sent via: Email

Re: Demand to Cease and Desist and Retract Libel November 2, 2007 Via Email

Dear (Names Redacted),

Our office represents SSL Certifications, and we have been asked to commence possible litigation action against you, (Names Redacted). Many of the statements about SSL Certifications posted on your web site are untrue and defamatory. We believe they were made maliciously to injure SSL Certifications and its affiliates. As such, they are defamatory per se. Under California Civil Code § 47, this letter constitutes a demand for immediate retraction of these false and libelous statements. Your web postings and conduct also constitute tortuous interference with the business and contractual relations of SSL Certifications and its affiliates. As such, they are actionable and expose you to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages. Below, we have noted one of the more malicious, and libelous comments made by you and your associates.

If SSL Certification is forced to file suit to stop your wrongful conduct, it may also seek an award of its attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Here is the location of the exact posting we are referring to:

(Link Redacted)

If you do not immediately remove this posting, and cease and desist from tortuous interference and making false and malicious comments about SSL Certifications on your website, we will advise our clients to file suit against you.

Please govern your website accordingly.

Sincerely yours,

Timothy Myers

Law offices of Dozier and Associates

Of course, if this letter is actually from the party listed as the sender, and not someone else posing as the sender, then there is some rather signficant criminal exposure here. My advice to everyone is to stay away from claiming that our law firm is representing you unless that is true. And if you are impersonating our law firm, you need to stop.

This is the reason we specifically and explicity prohibit use of our name in the Dozier Internet Law Website User Agreement. For all of the liberal, free speech fanatics who don't like that provision, and apparently enjoy having the crooks of the web impersonate legitimate businesses for financial gain, I suggest you stop trying to protect the underbelly of the online world and get a life.

Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report Goes Online

It started out as an effort to keep our clients informed. Keep them out of trouble. Give the affiliates, merchants, marketers, and business citizens of the web some perspective on the risks associated with various online activities. What better way, we thought, than to tell them what we see happening everyday? We can't take them into court with us. We can't send them a copy of the lawsuits filed for, and against, our clients. Dozier Internet Law generally does not even discuss most of the cases we handle, except in general terms.

Why is it important for clients to understand what can get them sued? Because, in the online world where marketing and business tactics evolve more quickly than the legal system can deal with, we often cannot speak of legality in an absolute sense. The fact is that among affiliate marketers, as an example, there is some black and white. Black hat tactics in the US will likely lead, eventually, to financial ruin through legal implications. In other words, you'll get sued or arrested. White hat tactics won't likely get you in legal trouble. But it will be difficult to effectively compete as an affiliate marketer. So, almost every affiliate marketer operates in a gray area in some respect; using strategies, tactics and practices that are neither clearly legal nor clearly illegal. Within this wide spectrum (Dozier Internet Law suggests 80% of the business practices used might be gray hat) there are individuals and businesses with different appetites for risk. And, of course, the businesses often weigh the risk with the anticipated reward in deciding what to do. That is how decisions are made in the world of affiliate marketing, and probably a big reason why the industry is extremely fragmented and the home of mostly very small businesses. It is an arena in which the Fortune 500 could not compete because they are relatively risk averse and not as "entrepreneurial" as the small mom and pop affiliate marketer.

Our initial thought was to provide a listing of all of the Federal law suits filed each week. Then we decided to add lawyer prepared summaries as case notes for ease of understanding by our business clients. I then started commenting on some of the lawsuits. Today we search every morning for all copyright and trademark lawsuits filed in the US Federal Courts the previous day, retrieve and organize them, have summaries prepared by attorneys...and then I select the most interesting cases and offer high level comments on the lessons to be learned by online businesses. Thus, the Dozier Internet Law Federal Court Report, previously delivered as a newsletter to our friends and clients, is now available online and linked on our homepage by category of legal issue including domain name, trademark, copyright, and trade secret lawsuits. The cases are typically added each week. Businesses can learn what actions or conduct got someone sued last week, and get a better understanding of what can get them sued.

Most small businesses realize that when they get sued, they lose. The cost of litigation makes it cost prohibitive to "win" a case in most circumstances. There are plenty of comments published about every court decision of importance. What many small and mid-sized clients don't hear is that the parties to the lawsuit decision spent $100,000, $300,000 or even more to get to that point. A tough nut to crack when your small business can't afford it.

So, for everyone struggling with trying to figure out what you can and cannot do, stop waiting for a court decision to tell you, because it will likely be a long wait. After all, the issue you should be concerned with is really "litigation avoidance", and the best way to avoid litigation is to know who is getting sued, and for what.

And remember...at Dozier Internet Law, we are all about protecting the business of the web. Enjoy. For our clients and friends we meet in person at the many conferences we attend, you'll continue to receive a monthly newsletter. It will take a new form....Mr. Dozier's "top ten" lawsuit lessons of the month, not otherwise available.