Slashdot Mirror
Australian Spammer Sues Back
Vilorman writes: "We've all heard the one about the spammers begin sued. Now, an Ausie spammer is suing back, for being blacklisted. Claiming damages and equipment replacement costs and so on. The whole article is over at Yahoo. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?"
The official web site of the defence is at http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/ (Mirror). There are also plans to set up a defence fund.
Bingo. Your "right" to send e-mail ends at my MX. I'm under no obligation to accept incoming e-mail at all.
Spam isn't a "free speech" issue. It's a "theft of resources" issue according to CompuServe vs. Cyber Promotions, wherein the judge decided that spamming was indeed "actionable trespass of chattel."
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Apparently, the IP addresses counted as "equipment" that had to be replaced, not to mention the email system.
T3 is seeking loss and damages of $7,907 (AU$14,000) for replacing blocked or compromised IP numbers, $2,683 (AU$4,750) for labor costs of technicians to establish an alternative e-mail system, $2,824 (AU$5,000) to purchase a new server computer and $11,296 (AU$20,000) for loss of income it claims to have incurred over a 20-day waiting period for a new Internet connection to be installed.
None of which was necessary. Change business models so as *not* to spam, which was the action requested (and quite probably spelled out in email to the spammer at one point), and none of that moeny would have had to be spent (unless "closing open relays and no longer spamming" counts as "establishing an alternative email system", but that's still brought upon self).
Jeremy Malcolm, an independent Perth-based solicitor who specializes in IT law and is representing McNichol [the defendant], said he wouldn't be putting in a defense straight away and would be applying for a summary judgment in the hopes of not having to go to trial.
Damn straight!
Malcolm described the statement of claim against his client as a ?fairly weak claim?brought about to intimidate a critic of T3 Direct.?
Isn't that the definition of a SLAPP suit in the States?