Another Go At Making Spam Cost Money

wario78 writes: "The BBC is running a story about the law firm Morrison and Foerster which is claiming damages against the spam company Etracks based in California. They are asking for $50 in damages for each spam they receive, up to the maximum of $25,000 per day. Nice to see a lawyer doing something community-oriented for a change (even if they are just trying to make a profit from it)."

Comments

A quick search shows...

[thrillbert]

.. That Timothy posted the origial article.. maybe someone should lay off the booze before lunch? ;}

Original story here.

Re:Why is spam treated differently?

[Geekboy(Wizard)]

Case 1 can cost people money
Case 2 does not cost people money
Case 3 does not cost people money

(Indirect costs, such as increased garbage taxes don't count.)

As much as I hate spam

[ConsumedByTV]

Disclaimer: I am not trolling, I really feel this way.

The internet has always been self policing. Why should we treat SPAM differently than the rest of email? Yes it sucks, but we can always filter it. We do not need legislation to save the inbox. We need common sense. Legislation is only going to make the internet more of a 'policed state.' I feel as if it cannot be said enough, the internet is not owned by the US and it will only lead to problems if goverments are brought in for annoying crap like spammers.

No I am not a spammer.
Yes I hate spam with a passion.
However, the more geeks want rules to govern the internet, the more the other laws (as well as shit like this) will be passed and upheld.

Stop this crap now.

Re:As much as I hate spam

[Pedrito]

There are many reasons to stop the spammers through legislation. People here have mentioned some good ones: Freeloaders using bandwidth and other people's mail servers. I have a friend who runs a small ISP in Mexico. Some spammer used his mail server (it was set for open relay) to send out a bunch of spam.

This guy didn't want to run an ISP. He had to. He had an internet cafe and the only ISP in town shutdown, so he bought them out so he could keep his internet cafe going, his only source of income. He's not real technical. Enough to run the cafe, but the ISP was a big hurdle for him. I'm just trying to explain the reason for the open relay.

Now, after this spammer used his open relay, his mail server (and all of his clients) suddenly became blacklisted, and he was unable to send ANY e-mail. He fixed the problem, but the incident cost him dearly.

So, there's another reason. Here's another: I have TONS of stuff filtering spam. I still get tons of it every day that doesn't get filtered. So I'm constantly adding new addresses and stuff to my filters. This takes my time, not a lot, but let's say a few minutes a day. My work time. Time I could be using to be more productive at my job. This hurts my company. Multiply that by everyone in the world who has e-mail, and you start to get an idea of the scope of productivity that's lost each day because of this crap.

What right do they have to use up the bandwidth and services we pay for? What right do they have to interefere with my productivity at work? If you can justify this and other issues that others have raised, you might have a case, but I doubt you'll be able to.

Re:As much as I hate spam

[StevenMaurer]

Why should we treat SPAM differently than the rest of email?

Good question - easy answer. Spam is fraud. Spammers routinely "spoof" their messages, packets, and other information in their attempts to foist the costs of their advertisements onto other people. This is electronic fraud, plain and simple.

I'd have no problem at all with Spam if each message they sent was clearly marked as an unsolicited advertisement. That way I could tell my ISP whether I wanted it or not. But clearly they're not going to do that because most people do not care to accept such ads.

Re:Sueing Slashdot

[doooras]

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Is it too much to ask?

[rgmoore]

Nice to see a lawyer doing something community-oriented for a change (even if they are just trying to make a profit from it)."

Is it too much to ask for people to drop the incessant lawyer bashing? Lawyers as a group spend a lot of time working on "community-oriented" work. They are expected to devote at least part of their time and effort doing pro bono work, i.e. representing cases in the public interest, frequently for people who otherwise couldn't afford representation. The law is one of the last careers where this is an ordinary expectation.

Re:Is it too much to ask?

[Artagel]

Yeah, and computer programmers are the reason computer programs cannot be used without going to professional training courses on how to use the program. :)

Complication has mostly arisen from the fact that somewhere a bias arose that the system attempt to genuinely reach the "right" result a very high percentage of the time, say 99%. Simpler rules would probably result in being right 90% of the time. As a people, so far, we haven't been willing to swallow that 9% difference.

Odds are even the really complicated system that aspires to 99%, is far less good than that, but the tweaks continue and continue. Take a look at the length of the US tax code as a function of time, and ask yourself -- is the tax code now 100 times better than a century ago? Is Microsoft Word 2000 that much better than Wordperfect 5.2? Is THE PHANTOM MENACE that much better a movie than CITIZEN KANE? I don't think any of the above, but the futile search for perfection through complexity continues.

So yeah, the law is bloatware. But what isn't these days?

oh really?

[Trepidity]

So as long as I state it ahead of time I can charge a $50 unsolicited viewing fee for every advertisement broadcast to my television. Or for every piece of junk mail sent to my house (via post)? Or for every one of those little fliers I get under my windshield wiper when I park?

Re:lawyers

[poot_rootbeer]

I thought making profits was all lawyers ever did!

Let's see how your opinion of lawyers changes after someone wrongs you and you have to take them to court.

Lawyers are not all evil because they charge money for their services when they can.

Re:Do small claims instead

[kindbud]

You can sue in small claims, that is true.

You can win, in fact if the spammer fails to show you will win by default. That's usually the outcome you will be hoping for.

So now you have a judgement for $5.00. What do you think will happen next? Think the court will enforce the judgment? Think again. Think the court will garnish the spammer's wages? Think again. Small claims court has not the time nor the resources to enforce the judgments they render. You still have to run around with your piece of paper signed by the judge and try to get the system to enforce it. Eventually, after many months of trying, you might be able to get an arrest warrant for your spammer. Then you can begin trying to get the police to arrest him. How high on the list of priorities do you think warrants for delinquent $5 judgments stand?

Not very.

On the bright side, in states with anti-spam laws, you do not have to prove that spam has damaged you in order to prevail in court. The anti-spam laws generally make it easy to win your case, but they do nothing to help you enforce the judgment.

Re:I want to get an e-mail address with them.

[curunir]

Why would they pay you anything?

They could sell email addresses to people and make a fortune. How much would you pay for an SPAM-free email address @mofo.com?

Re:Redefining the e-mail standard and PATENTS

[Bodrius]

It would be relatively difficult to redesign the email protocol and get everyone in the bandwagon at this point. Redesigning it so as to get something new to be patented would be more problematic.

Of course, there is the big problem of prior art. I know this would be a "bad patent" on purpose, but "bad patents" without a lot of money behind them tend to be recognized as "bad" more quickly than is usual.

On the other hand, if you're willing to ignore the issues of prior art and take your chances, why not patent spam itself too? That way you get to sue spammers for patent infringement, not the violation of a license (which, without "damages", is likely to be resolved by revocation of the license, something corporate entities can play with easily).