The other day, David Giacalone, formerly of f/k/a, asked me a very good question. Does a website called USLaw have my permission to , both in abstracts as well as in their entirety? Curious, I took a look, and just as David said, there were my posts, published in full. So I wondered too why the fine folks at USLaw felt entitled.
I searched to find out who the fine folks at USLaw might be reached. There was one of those email forms, that someone can fill in their blanks to send them a communique, but without an email address to do so on one’s own terms. Well that wasn’t what I was looking for, so my search continued.
No telephone number. No identity of the owner of the website. No nothing. I asked David if he could do some digging for me, and he went to the source, After checking “Whois” and coming up with only the host, David went to the “Aboutus” website and thought he hit paydirt. There was a telephone number. He let me know.
I called the telephone number for USLaw.com. A message. It was disconnected. Nor was there a listing for USLaw anywhere to be found.
After sending the fine folks at USLaw an email, using their form, inquiring why they were under the belief that they could take my copyrighted original content and use it in full on their commercial website, I awaited a response. I’m still waiting.
The part I find most peculiar is that they have an image of Simple Justice on their website, with the USLaw logo superimposed on it to suggest that I am somehow a part of the US Law family. The same is true for Mark Bennett’s , which I guess makes us brothers of different mothers (leaving me naturally to be the runt of the litter).
So who are these fine folks who are of the view that they are entitled to capture my content, and I would imagine the content of every other blawg in creation, and sell it others so that they can enjoy a profitable commercial blog? It’s not that I have anything against a profitable commercial venture. I’m no commie. But there is a small issue of their enjoyment of the fruits of my labors, and yours as well, to discuss.
Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know.
Update: While no word from USLaw.com about what they’re up to, WindyPundit has questioned why it bothers me that this sort of stuff happened.
I’m a bit mystified by Scott’s reaction. It’s not like USLaw.com is scraping the content off his website. Scott publishes full feeds for Simple Justice—in RSS and Atom, both also advertised as related content in the HTML header—and USLaw.com has picked them up. This is how content syndication works.
I’m not sure if U.S. law recognizes a syndication link as granting a license, but it’s common usage in the blogosphere. If Scott doesn’t want other people publishing the full articles, he probably shouldn’t be offering the full articles in the feed.
Since Windy’s not a lawyer, the points has nothing to do with his lack of understanding of fair use and copyright, and more to do with an appreciation of stealing, a fairly universal notion. The fact that it’s easy to steal online, via an RSS feed, doesn’t change the fact that stealing is still wrong. I’m surprised that Windy doesn’t recognize that distinction, but I suspect that it has more to do with the fact that he doesn’t see his original content having value, so taking something valueless isn’t much of a problem. I think Windy is mistaken, that his content has value and if it didn’t, no one would bother taking it.
To the extent Windy has issues, they are geek issues. He’s miffed that he’s not in their directory, and that he doesn’t get SEO benefit because of the “no follow” code they use. But he’s got no problem that a commercial enterprise would take the fruits of his labor and use them to make money without his permission and without his participation. To each his own, I guess. But as I explained in the comment to Windy’s post, the fact that it’s okay with him doesn’t mean that stealing should be fine with me.
And to the geeky point, stealing online is easy. Stealing online is still stealing. Easy doesn’t make it right.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, thanks for letting me know, I pulled their button off my site, I don’t want to support that!
Sure, I’m nearly badge-less, but who needs stinking badgers?
Some day I’ll be good enough to get plagiarized
That Giacalone is really quite the budinsky now that he’s got so much non-blawging time on his hands.
While you’re waiting for a reply from USALaw.com, how about expanding on all those wonderful services they offer to help lawyers become bigtime web success stories? And, see if you can find out some details on the “30 lawyers available online to answer your question for as little as fifteen dollars.”
I like their footnote: “All original material © 1999-2009 by USLaw.com”.
Sites like this are quite common nowadays, and dealing with them can be frustrating. The common advice is to contact the site owner, then their ISP, Google Ads, domain registrar, and possibly the search engines.
I suppose that as a lawyer, you’ll know what to do. 😉
I feel left out.
No doubt they would defend it as a sort of links page or blogroll. They would be wrong.
Please refrain from drawing any conclusions from Scott’s misinformed judgments and insinuations.
We have decided to give Scott an opportunity to correct himself on the record before a public response is posted by USLaw.com which has the potential to cause Scott far more embarrassment than his fear of “one of those email forms that someone can fill in… to send…. a communique.” In the meantime, one and all are invited to inquire via that all too intimidating means which Scott found inadequate (apologies in advance if we can not respond to every inquiry in the same wink of an eye that Scott feels is necessary to avoid being slandered):
http://www.uslaw.com/contact.php
We look forward to having the author of this curious post feel the same warm and cuddly way he did about USLaw.com when he acknowledged having this blog indexed by our humble Blog Directory back in January, 2008. In the meantime…. Blog on!
[Ed. Note: Aside from this anonymous comment threatening embarrassment, I’ve received an email, also without a name attached, claiming that there was email correspondence about USLaw indexing my blawg. Since I’m out of town at the moment, I will check when I return to see what, if anything, occurred. In the meantime, the anonymous writer, who has come to my blawg with threats, proves, if nothing else, to be a major asshole. More when I return.]
[Ed. Note 2: In response to subsequent comment, that’s been removed: Hey anonymous US Law, you could always send me the top secret information that proves that you are right and I am wrong, so that if I’m wrong, I can immediately tell the world. That way, I wouldn’t have to wait until I returned to New York to let everyone know how right you are and what an asshole I am. Did that occur to you? But until I do, stop trying to comment, This is my blawg, and I’ve shut you down until I do what I have already said I would do. Until then, you don’t get to post any more of your brilliant observations about how I’m the asshole. My house, my rules.]
I’m just replying to subscribe so I can see the epilogue.
Hey, couldya hand me some more popcorn? I do not wish to miss a moment of this show.
At the risk of sending SHG into apoplexy…
hyperlink Alert! hyperlink Alert!
hehe
I know, I know. I left it in there for a reason, so anyone who wanted to could see the lengths to which they go to conceal their identity. What legitimate business refuses to provide a name, telephone or email? So now anyone who wants can see for themselves the transparency of this deal.
Scott?…SCOTT??! Are you there? Hello? It’s after 11 am eastern time and there aren’t any new posts on the blog…
OH MY GOD! Scott’s Missing!!
And right after he criticized USLaw.com! Those bastards! They must have kidnapped Scott!!!
Ah. I figured there had to be a reason.
On a side note, I’ve explored them a bit more and found that I indeed am good enough to plagiarize, under the category of “Texas” but not “Criminal Law” or “Criminal Defense”.
That’s OK, I’ll take what I can get.
Scott:
Why arent you allowing USLAW to reply to your posts? It is quiet unsportsmanlike to deny someone you have accused of wrong dong an opportunity to respond.
Because I commented on this thread, they sent me an email as well. May I reproduce it here, Scott?
Their claims are bogus for a variety of reasons that I’m sure you’ll illuminate.
I’ll wait for Scott’s OK to post their main email to me with their elaborate attempted justifications for their conduct (tip to “G. Chase”: if your justification for your conduct relies on phrases like “it is generally regarded,” you may need better legal representation). However, I will post the douchey little note they just sent to me in response to my post at 2:41 p.m., above:
“You should be aware Scott has censored our responses on his comment thread and has blocked the submission of new responses from our IP
address. Would be surprised to learn that you considered that fair
behavior.
Are you opposed to the exercising the honor of replying directly to our email so that you may rely on a direct and impartial means to come to your own conclusions instead of relying on Scott to make judgments for you? Fairness would seem to dictate you do that, no?”
I was actually already aware, thanks, based on what Scott said in this thread. I’m also unswayed by appeals to honor or fairness from marketing-vermin with such a lose grip on law and logic.
But hey, their emails did persuade me of something — it persuaded me to take another look at their blog section. There I noted something odd that I hadn’t previously grasped from a quick read of Scott’s post and “G. Chase’s” email: USLaw.com does not merely post an unauthorized excerpt of blog posts. If you click on the links they put up over each excerpt, it takes you not to the author’s site, not to the original blog post elsewhere, but to a full version of the blog post hosted entirely on USLaw’s site and bearing USLaw’s URL.
Perhaps it’s my dishonor and unfairness or poor reading skills or something, but I don’t even see a disclaimer saying that copyright resides in the original authors, or any statement qualifying the copyright assertion Scott sets forth above.
“G. Chase’s” emails suggest to me that USLaw has not yet grasped the trouble they are in if they pursue a thuggish, SLAPP-style (and legally unsupportable) approach to Scott’s post. The legal blogosphere has not yet begun to take notice and rally.
Ken, you received direct email in part because our “just” host has chosen to censor USLaw.com’s responses. In fact, he has blocked the submission of additional comments from our IP address. We are saddened and shocked my Scott’s lack of fair play.
Yes Scott, your house, your rules. But a “just” rule maker would not prevent the accused from responding, though if he must, he would close all new comments so that additional unchallenged accusations would not sit unchallenged.
Those wishing to see the other side of this coin, please feel free to visit a more honorable playing field at:
http://www.uslaw.com/simpleinjustice
Cheers
Ken, please read Winypundit’s explanation of content syndication. Furthermore, please be aware that Scott specifically authorized the indexing of his content syndication feed in January, 2008. There is nothing “unauthorized” about USLaw.com’s practice.
Wow – that’s some pretty interesting public relations strategy.
Since I’m not a lawyer, I don’t give legal advice, so this isn’t that. Claro? Wouldn’t want the much-vaunted legal and PR Braniacs at USLaw.com to misinterpret this as a cite from Digging vs. Hole 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001) or something.
You’re in a hole. Immediately: stop digging.
I’d love to interview you, it’s been so long since I had the chance to find someone who objects to sharing their web content with other websites that I think it would be fun to get your comments. Kind of like asking Joan Rivers what her thoughts on Jon Stewart are, or asking the head of NBC what he thinks of YouTube. This idiotic insistence on some sliver of “copyright” on some nonsensical blog post is hilarious. Are you sure this blog is an affiliate of theonion.com?
[Ed. Note: I considered taking this down for being pathologically stupid, but under the circumstances, it just seemed to be exactly the sort of thing needed for lawyers to appreciate USLaw to its fullest. I assume this to be either the same person or a friend, since the URL is a scam on the NY Times and the commenter has never been here before today, as far as I can tell.]
P.S. I left a stack of promotional literature on a desk at a conference with a sign that said “take one if you want” but didn’t expect anyone to actually take one. Gosh darn it, those darn RSS syndication feeds, they just don’t understand copyright law! P.P.S. You’re a moron.
Jdog, for a non-lawyer (and there’s nothing wrong with that), you have 1L humor down pat. My lawyer provided the vary same citation as caution.
I told him I have faith Scott is a good natured enough fellow to see this thread is clarified when time permits.
I’m looking forward to a thoughtful response from Scott. Call me old-fashioned, but I can do without the name-calling, which is seldom entertaining or enlightening. Also, if a person decides to call names and hurl accusations, he should be willing to identify himself or herself personally — not just some corporate identification.
[Anyone who does not know who Prof. Yabut is, can always click on the link to find out. If you’re too lazy to click, Prof. Yabut is an alter ego of David Giacalone of the f/k/a weblog.]
You’re serious? Your lawyer cited friggin’ Glowacki at you?
For those who came in late, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001) is a Minnesota self-defense case, involving the lack of duty to retreat when under assault in the home. Glowacki prevailed on that point — he didn’t have to retreat — but it didn’t do him a whole lot of good, as the court ruled that the jury still reasonably decided that the force he used to beat up his attacking cohabitant was grossly excessive, and the conviction stood.
I think it’s more like this: I left a stack of promotional literature that I had drafted at a conference, under a sign that said “take one if you want.” The next time I went to the conference, I saw that someone had produced a glossy new brochure that said “If you give money to InsipidMarketingCo., THIS is the sort of great resource we can provide to you to grow your business!!!!eleven1!!!”, followed by a photocopy of my own brochure.
Lack of fair play? You’re infringing on his copyright, you fucking moron.
Sigh. Better than mine. And I thought mine was pretty good.
Hey Marc, I was hoping you had something to contribute. I’ll take this as definitive.
On my blog, instead of a blogroll (though I have one of those too on a separate page) I’ve got a clip of “shared items” from Google Reader. When visitors click on the item in the clip (that I’ve “shared” as I go through my Google Reader daily) they’re taken directly to the post on the author’s blog. However, if they click on the “read more” button at the bottom of the clip, they’re taken to a Google Reader public page which contains all the posts I’ve ever shared in their entirety. And I’ve shared plenty of Scott’s posts. Of course, I don’t promote this public page and try to make money off it.
USLaw.com: The Verdict Is In
When I questioned why USLaw.com used my posts, in their entirety, on its website, it caused quite a ruckus.
Say, Jose, how special that you’ve decided to come and post your first comment at Simple Justice. I bet you’re a big fan and read everything posted here. And you’re probably just a true lover of sportsmanship. Unlike me, since I am a very unsportsmanlike fellow not letting people who steal from me use my platform to try to justify their misconduct.
“the common advice is to [etc]”
no. The common advice is to send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP, which is discoverable in their whois record. If the ISP doesn’t respond, you can sue the ISP for contributory infringement. Hello statutory damages!
If this jerk doesn’t have true contact information in his DNS record, go over his head.
It is. He’s not only infringing on Scott’s copyright, but on every blogger’s trademark in their directory by superimposing their logo on the blog’s thumbnail.
If Scott and any others who might be interested want to organize a conference call to discuss filing a copyright and trademark infringement suit against U.S. Law, I’d be willing to participate — and I’ll unleash an army of my students on the task too.