We all laughed last October when a law firm claimed copyright on their cease-and-desist letters.  We thought it was stupid that a law firm could claim that, if they sent you a cease-and-desist letter and you placed in a public space, say on the Internet, you would be violating their copyright.  We’re not laughing now.  A judge has sided with the law firm.  The lawyer in question has now threatened to sue anyone who prints his cease-and-desist letters.

“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.”

Apparently, free speech doesn’t mean anything to this lawyer.  However, Techdirt believes differently.

“The copyrighting of cease-and-desist letters is an easy way for law firms to bully small companies who have committed no wrong, but who have no real recourse to fight back against an attempt to shut them up via legal threat. Until today, many companies who were being unfairly attacked by companies and law firms misusing cease-and-desist letters to prevent opinions from being stated, had a reasonable recourse to such attacks, and could draw attention to law firms that used such bullying tactics to mute any criticism.” This is an unfortunate ruling and can only serve to create a serious chilling effect on free speech.

Technically, the lawyer is right, however, I believe that this is not within the spirit of the law.  Hopefully, there will be further cases where the validity of such law is challenged.  That is when it will get interesting.  That is when arguments for/against fair use, ownership, and creativity can take place.

Again, this case isn’t so much a case of a lawyer trying to protect his ownership of a cease-and-desist letter.  It is a case of suppressing information.  If you cannot make such items available to the general public, you cannot get help in your own case because the other side has, essentially, shut you up before things even start.  It eliminates free speech.  It should be easily overturned on appeal.  Then again, we never thought this case would get this far.