Copyright Law - Copyrightability - Federal Court Recognizes Copyright Rights In Cease And Desist Rebuttal

Tabberone Logo
Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

The Tabberone™ Archives
These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement.
When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

Source:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/DozierInternetLaw/InternetLawyer/prweb650951.htm
May 2, 2008 - Our rebuttal is in blue type. Mr Dozier gives what is obvioulsy his "professional opinion" on this case while we give what is our "pro se" opinion on the case and on his misplaced "opinion". The relevant parts at issue are below. The rest edited out for readibility.

REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTAL ~ REBUTTAL
Federal Court Recognizes Copyright Rights In Cease And Desist
Our Rebuttal To This Misinformation
Posted by Dozier Internet Law on PRWeb on January 24, 2008/ Rebuttal Posted by Tabberone May 2, 2008
Any fool can post a "press release" on PRWeb. We know. We did in 2003.
US District Court decision threatens common practice reports Dozier Internet Law.
Glen Allen, VA (PRWEB) January 24, 2008 -- The US District Court for the District of Idaho has found that copyright law protects a lawyer demand letter posted online by the recipient (Case No. MS-07-6236-EJL-MHW).
Not true. What the court said was the plaintiffs had presented a prima facie showing of their complaint, which is all that is required by law for the magistrate judge to issue a subpoena. The judge stated, "However, the Court will not go into an in-depth analysis of the merits of a copyright infringement claim in determining whether to quash this subpoena." This was NOT a ruling on the merits of the case but simply the issuance of a pre-litigation subpoena.
The Final Judgment calls into serious question the practice of posting lawyer cease and desist letters online, a common tactic used and touted by First Amendment groups to attack legal efforts at resolving everything from defamation to intellectual property disputes.
Pure, unadulterated bull. Final Judgment? It was the issuance of a pre-litigation subpoena not a final judgment on a point of law.
The Court, in its decision, found that a copyright had been adequately established in a lawyer's cease and desist letter. The unauthorized publication of the letter, therefore, can expose the publisher to liability. Statutory damages under the US Copyright Act can be as much as $150,000 per occurrence plus attorneys' fees that can average $750,000 through trial. The publisher of the letter raised First Amendment and "fair use" arguments without success.
And the manure gets deeper. The word "adequately is misleading. What Dozier deliberately fails to state is that the plaintiffs got a copyright on the letter June 22, 2007, some two months after the cease & Desist letter was posted in the internet. What Dozier also fails to state is that anyone can get a letter copyrighted by simply submitting the letter to the U.S. Copyright Office along with the filing fee. It's automatic. It does not mean the material is really copyrightable. As far as the "fair use" arguments, again, this hearing was for the issuance of pre-litigation subpoena not for the merits of the case.
John W. Dozier, Jr., Esq., President of Dozier Internet Law, PC, was not surprised by the decision. "In today's world, anticipating how the Courts will view 'new age' arguments is not easy. Dozier Internet Law has been using copyright protected cease and desist letters for years with great success in protecting our business clients and preventing an escalation of a situation. The publication of cease and desist letters is an easy way for scofflaws to generate online 'mobosphere' support for illegal activity and, until today, many businesses have been hesitant to take action to address some of the lawlessness online because of possible retaliation and attacks."
Here Dozier tells you where he stands concerning the issues. He's a corporate lawyer. We call corporate lawyers bottom-feeders.
Dozier Internet Law specializes in protecting the intellectual property and reputations of online business. Mr. Dozier believes that the decision will return pre-litigation notices and negotiations to a state of normalcy and allow businesses to more effectively police their interests online. He noted that prior to the Internet, private legal disputes were handled between attorneys with a focus on avoiding costly legal battles and not burdening the judicial system with legal cases that should have been resolved without a lawsuit. Since the posting of cease and desist letters became a popular practice, fueled predominantly by guidance and legal advice from "free speech" organizations located in the US, businesses have either allowed theft and lawlessness to continue or immediately filed a lawsuit that can take many years to resolve. "It's a great day for businesses and a bad day for those conducting illegal activity online," Dozier said.
More of where Dozier tells you where he stands concerning the issues His client is right and the rest of the world is infringing.

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<