Slashdot Mirror
Fax-Spammers fax.com Sued For 2.2 Trillion
linuxwrangler writes "Fed up with junk faxes which have been illegal since 1991, a Silicon Valley businessman has launched a lawsuit against junk faxer fax.com. Steve Kirsch seeks the damages provided in the law: $500/fax for the last four years. If certified as a class-action on behalf of the 3 million receipients of the faxes that fax.com claims to send each day the total damages would reach 2.2 billion even without invoking the "triple-damages" clause for "willful" violations. Federal regulators hit fax.com with a 5.4 million fine just two weeks ago after the company ignored numerous warnings from the FCC and was found to be in "flagrant violation" of the law. Fax.com maintains that their actions are protected by the constitution and court decisions in this case could lay the foundation for the future of junk email regulation"
Doesn't our country run on something in the area of $3 trillion per year? Try making the title and the article sync up.
claims to send each day the total damages would reach 2.2 billion 'nuff said
A lawsuit that would definately put a company out of business.
/. Headline: "Fax-Spammers fax.com Sued For 2.2 Trillion Spam | Posted by timothy on 22:48 22nd August, 2002"
linuxwrangler's post:
"If certified as a class-action on behalf of the 3 million receipients of the faxes that fax.com claims to send each day the total damages would reach 2.2 billion..."
Rude Turnip's conclusion: Man, they must have sent out a *shitload* of fax spam between the time of the article submission and when it was posted to Slashdot's front page!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
I know spamming is annoying, but doesnt 5.4 million seem like a lot of money. or is that just to cover the wasted paper
...in most states, that is.
Do any of us who actually understand the technical side of how email works believe that passing any law is going to stop spam? Our mail relay system needs to be overhauled, period. A technical solution is the ONLY solution to fixing SPAM, I'm afriad.
'A trillian is more than a billion num nuts!'
Suing a DOT com for 2.2 Trillion dollars...
;)
This isn't 1999
"Fax-Spammers fax.com Sued For 2.2 Trillion"
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Check out this letter I got after reporting one:
Mo Junk Fax Response
I was a little disappointed to say the least. This fax was hitting me every morning at 3am.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
they send faxes about missing children! Without them children would stay missing.
what honerable and praiseworthy advertisers they are.
how long is it going to be until you start getting the 'missing children' spam email? I already get them in the real mail, missing children on one side of a ad, and the otherside, filled with useless spam.
The problem with spam coming in over a fax is that a fax machine (unlike an email box) can only handle one file/fax at a time, and the cost of toner, and tying up the line.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
However, they should have to pay all of our phone bills and paper costs... plus trash bags, disposal costs, a reasonable fee for our time disposing of their waste, etc.
-T
I wonder if there are any fax machines that can be programmed to block faxes from certain numbers, or by other identifying data.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
the poster made an error, but the link has $2.2 trillion as well. Yes, it is an insane number, but spaming with a fax is insane as well.
2) They could both be right, if linuxwrangler is British (sorry, too lazy to check), since on the west side of the pond a trillion is a million million, while on the east side, that number is called a 'billion' (which in my head makes more sense anyway)...
3) Either way, it's a helluva lot of money to be fined, and would [ probably | hopefully ] kill off the company involved...
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
2.2 Billion Times 3 = 2.2 Trillion!
It's the New math!
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
You expected help from a Nixon?
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
500 dollars * 3,000,000 per day * 365 day per year * 4 years = 2.2 trillion
It's about time... Know what else bugs me? those recorded messages that the autodialers spew onto your answering machine or into your ear if you're unfortunate enough to pick it up. That's gotta be illegal (you can't tell them to stop because it's not a person). Is there any way to stop that?
...court decisions in this case could lay the foundation for the future of junk email regulation
Good, let's hope so! We could use more junk email regulation, and not a moment too soon.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
...pay off the national debt. What better way for the American people to show their patriotism after September 11 by donating their lawsuit proceeds to the government!
:)
I'm going to fax my representative right now about it.
2.2 billion x triple-damages = 6.6 billion from fax.com.
Estimated world population by US Census Bureau: 6,245,356,272
6,600,000,000 / 6,245,356,272 = 1.06
So, basically, that's enough to give every person in the world a dollar...or enough to get Worldcom back on their feet for another year or two!
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-
"2.2 trillion....(pinkie)dollars.*snicker*"
Judge: Would the prosecution PLEASE refrain from doing that pinkie thing every single time? You're getting on my nerves...
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
$2.2T? With a fine like that, we could start paying down the national debt...
Invoke the triple damages rule and that becomes 6.6 trillion, now add for interest (compounded daily of course at 5%),,, now just the interest would be a whopping $330,000,000,000 per diem which equals in simple terms a debt that will never be paid (hell even the 2.2 trillion is unattainable by a company of that nature, considering they weren't charging $500 per fax, let alone the $1500 it could theoretically cost them). Maybe Microsoft could bail them out? LOL!!!
If you do, and regulations go into effect regarding SPAM e-mail, then each and every one of us has a case. Unless the legislation that comes out of this suit has a "non-retroactive" clause (or something along those lines), then we can all take out our SPAM-induced "Net Rage" out on the sorry saps that pull this crap.
After all, isn't that the American dream? Turning a profit on the misery of others? Won't it be nice to turn the tables on these low-lifes and profit from their misery?
And what, praytell, will become of the sneaky bastards like the infamous Crushlink, the ones that lead us on into giving up our addys so they can sell the list to the SPAM crowd? If I were a SPAMer and fax.com loses, I'd be running for the hills...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
2,2 trillion dollar lawsuit...
You US people keep amazing me. Carry on while we Europeans laugh about your legal silliness! Cheers!
in Britain and generally everywhere except for the USA, one billion == 1 000 000 000 000, the number called a trillion in the USA. In the USA, a billion is 1 000 000 000.
Basically, both a billion and a trillion are correct, and you are ignorant for suggesting that the person who said billion is in error.
...he's only being charged $500/fax.
The existing junk fax law states that if the faxer is *knowingly* violating the law, the fine can be tripled to $1500 - per fax.
Surely someone pointed out this law to the faxer at some point...?
I'd love to see this scum bag try to pass his costs onto his customers, who then sue him for damaging their business' reputation.
That just says "we can't start new legal action under this law while a federal court is reviewing whether this law is legal."
Why don't you try other routes? Specifically, a harrasment case of some sort. Walk into small claims court, claim they are harrasing you, get a temporary injunction against them. Suggest others to do the same.
I can't imagine that not working; if a random person were calling you on the telephone every morning at 3 am, the stalker laws would come down on them quite painfully.
Why are junk faxes illegal? Because it inconveniences businesses, not people, and we don't mind crippling free speech for the sake of corporations. Criminalizing spam flies in the face of free speech as well, especially given the relative inexpensiveness of the medium as compared to telemarketing or junk mail. Plenty of technological measures are available to combat each of these things at the receiving end. Why must we use the law to silence people when individuals can easily choose not to listen?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
2.2 Trillion? Let's try not to pass such a theoretical number off as fact in this lawsuit. I was going to say I was surprised Slash would post that kind of sensationalism, but then reality hit. Back here in the real world, we all know damn well that that number will ever see the light of day in this suit, let alone be awarded as a settlement. Try again, Tex.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
OK, so what is 1 000 000 000 on that side of the water??
The article says FAX.COM claims it send 3 million faxes per day. The lawsuit is for the last 4 years. At $500 per fax.
3,000,000*365*4*500 = 2.2 TRILLION DOLLARS.
And then theres the possibility for TRIPPLE DAMAGES if the judge rules the violations were willfull. It's completely up to the judge, but IMO (IANAL) FAX.COM's actions were blatantly willfull as defind by the relevant law. If convicted, not assessing triple damages would be a gift.
We have a fax machine. We've been getting junk faxes semi-reularly. With luck maybe we'll be getting a peice of the pie when this is over. I hope it's triple damages (grin), not that it would change the size of the check. I'm sure single damages is enough to bankrupt them nearly a million times over.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Odd, the title says 2.2 Trillion, the body says 2.2 Billion. Pick a number.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
1 000 million :-)
actually it's a milliard, but I think they just use 1000 million instead. I'm from the USA so I'm a little rusty with my English idioms.
At least with fax spam you don't get spoofed addresses and the like.
Or then again maybe there's a bunch of guys running around with a fax machine in the back of a van and phone cable using your phone line in the dead of night...
So much to do, so little bandwidth.
--
Try Mozilla
1: it's from overseas companies who are located overseas. Isn't that a bit redundant?
2: He/She has the money because someone paid them to send out their ad. They don't just do one ad at a time in most cases. Otherwise, SPAM wouldn't be as lucrative a business option.
3: spam, SPAM, what's the difference? I don't even like Hormel's nasty can-o-meat. I won't eat anything I can't positively identfy...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Let's not forget the leap year
/--cliche
/--end cliche
500 dollars * 3,000,000 in just one day = 1.5 billion dollars.
You know what they say, a billion here, a billion there, sooner or later you start talking real money.
Not making fun; I'm genuinely curious about this one.
That's what I would do
Anyway that aint shit. I used get multihundred pages from all over the world because some big employment agency misprinted their fax number and I get everything from resumes to employment verifications to mortgage questions. What I did was I called the agency, let them know and then threw the pages away away.
Many others have pointed it out as well, but the critical difference between junk (snail) mail and junk faxes is that junk faxes use up actual resources of the recipient, namely paper and ink, while junk mail is paid for entirely by the sender and does not cost the recipient anything (other than the time to throw it away, which is generally considered insignificant--whether that's proper is another question). To draw an extreme example, because I can't think of a better one at the moment, it's like how yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal; the right to free speech is not an unrestricted right.
indeed i am interested.
do you have video and/or photographic footage of this "in sync" action?
When you're dealing with numbers this big, the actual amount doesn't matter, since if the claim is successful it's gonna bankrupt the company period. It makes no difference if they go under owing 2 billion or 2 trillion dollars, the end result is the same.
Well, Yes! Jay Nixon was a driving force behind out telemarketing opt-out law. It works quite well. I filled out a web form and get no telemarketing calls except for the local newspaper trying to sell me a subscription (which I already have, they are just too lazy to check) and the occasional call from a charity that I already give to.
They are pushing an update to the law to close the remaining loopholes.
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/ has the poop. Over 1 million Missouri phone lines are registered for no call. That's a pretty good chunk of the state. We only have 5.6Mfolk. The AG's office is even enforcing the law! >$600,000 in fines levied so far.
perhaps you missed the other reply to my other message, but my understanding is that it's technically a "milliard," but that 1000 million is also used.
Judging by the corporate scandals coming to light as of late, that figure is probably close to the CEO's yearly salary.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Hell, I spilled a cup of hot coffee in my lap and Larry H. Parker helped me get 2.2 Trillion. Ask for more!
No, but I have a surge protector in my pants!
that the person who submitted this article (linuxwrangler) is really none other than.... Dr. EVIL!!! ;-)
With that much $$$ this guy could afford to purchase Iridium. Finally, free satellite Internet access for everyone! ;-)
There's a rather interesting trend going on with the regulation of commercial speech in America. You can read about it here.
Just four years ago in an advertising class I took, the professor stood upon the mount and proclaimed that advertising isn't "protected free speech." Take that as you will.
Ahh, crap, I'm getting all varklempt. Talk amongst yourselves! Here, I'll give you a topic. With fax.com's assertion, the trend continues towards paid messages being allowed to be progressively more intrusive. Discuss!
I don't quite understand how bussinesses can violate basic private property laws (isn't that a constitutional clause too?) in the name of free speech.
If I was sick and bound to my bed in my house, unable to use the phone or email, does that give them the right to enter my house without my consent just to try an talk me into buying their discount coffin?
I guess it's like issuing 12 life sentances. but really, I don't think even the tobacco companies were fined this much. While I'm no law expert, I can't recall any case that has successfully closed anywhere near that number. Dissolve the company? Yes. Will the money break down anywhere near those increments? Not a chance. Still, you're right. They definitley screwed themselves.
And to the moderator; Flaimbait? So which part of the statement was irrelevant? The over-inflated 2.2 Trillion, that slashdot posted this sensationalism or the fact that the courts will never see that number? I see the light, and it's leaking out somebodies ass...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
And then, of course, when the money never comes in they'll have to restate the government's revenue for this year...
Can you say "WorldCom?" I knew you could!
TyZone
They don't have trillions. They don't have billions. They may have millions, but they won't after they pay their attorneys.
The tens of thousands of people who've been inconvenienced (and in some cases harmed) by fax-spam won't get anything meaningful out of this except, just maybe, the activity will stop.
The perpetrators will have to shut down the company, but unless there's jail time, they'll walk away free to start up another nuisance company -- after all, it's all they know how to do. They'll probably go into email spam selling bulk fax software...
TyZone
Spam makes me CRAZY. What about ROBOT DIALERS - Do you say that's constitutionally protected "FREE SPEECH" also? Sheesh!
Guess he IS a troll. . .
(Slightly O/T) Has anyone else noticed that in the past year or so telemarketers have started leaving messages on answering machines? This seems to be an increasing trend. For instance, today I came home to find a 75-second solicitation for a trip to Disyneyland (apparently it's their 100th anniversary, according to the message) on the anwering machines for both lines in my house. Now, granted, this may not be a huge problem for most people, but I've actually had a number of occasions where my answering machine has filled up with telemarketer messages and caused me to miss "real" messages as a result. In my situation, and that of others who have similar problems, should I not be able to argue that the inconvenience of telemarketers (or at least their recent practice of leaving messages)is not "insignificant"? If I have a relatively limited amount of recording space on my digital answering machines and I'm getting numerous 60+ second advertisements every day, I think this is quite unfair, and a good example of the not-so-insignificant problems telemarketing perpetuates.
All the NRA freaks with guns running around and the wrong people getting shot. Put S. Kirch out of his misery now to end the flow of faxes. You people kill doctors who do abortions, schoolchildren and innocent bystanders so what's one S. Kirch the fax spammer in that crowd?
I mean, who in their right mind would think that companies would WANT junk faxes? I'm reading through their FAQs, and I don't see any one that says "I heard that making others pay for our advertisements with their paper and ink is wrong. Is this true?" on there. I'm serious. I want to know who could possibly justify this and think that others wouldn't view it as anything less than a pure annoyance.
Danish != nationality
No they couldn't. As we've seen time and time again, relevant decisions in other mediums--even similar mediums such as fax, phone, or cellular--always seem inapplicable to the Internet. For some reason, our legal and judicial systems incorrectly think that anything having to do with this new-fangled Internet thing must require its own special and distinct legislation.
INAL but I believe that after going bankrupt you're not able to own a business for something like 5 years.
Orthanc
Can't you just wait until a telemarketer faxes/calls you, and then just pick up the line and leave it off the hook for an hour or three? That'd annoy 'em (unless they had multiple phone lines, God damn 'em).
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The rights attributed to individuals in the Constitution relate to government (federal or state) actions, not the actions of other idividuals. The Constitution does not prevent an individual from violating your "rights," b/c the constitution does not attribute any rights to individuals vis-a-vis other individuals.
A private party (be they a corporation or a real person) can injure you in some way -- they can break a contract, violate the law or commit a tort against you...but they cannot violate your Constitutional rights; only a government can do that.
An example: let's say everyone in your community, your neighbors and the police alike, suspect you of a crime that you may or may not have committed. If the police search your home looking for evidence without a warrant, they have violated your Constitutional rights (4th ammendment). If your next-door-neighbor, however, breaks into your house looking for evidence, he has committed a crime (breaking and entering), but he has not violated your Constitutional rights. Of course, if he finds any "evidence" that he gives to the police, and the police attempt to use it to prosecute you, Constitutional law comes into play...but Constitutional law does not concern interactions exclusively between private parties.
BTW - I am a lawyer.
Then we should go forward and hack their web servers and deface their home page.
It must be legal. After all, if they can legally intrude our fax system and put messages on it, we can intrude their computers and put messages on them. Simple.
More evil idea that should be legal in California - maybe we can put an "opt-out" email address on the defaced web page that says "If you want to unsubscribe from the deface list, please email l337@yahoo.com with your full web page address"
Maybe all of us can set our spam filter to forward our spam emails to sales@fax.com...after all, it's protected free speech.
Title 47, Section 227(b) of the United States Code.
This law makes it illegal "to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." The term "unsolicited advertisement'' is defined as "any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." Damages are set at actual monetary damages, or $500, whichever is greater. The court may increase the damages up to three times this amount if it finds the defendant "willfully or knowingly" violated this law.
Under federal law, these unsolicited faxes are illegal, but fax advertisers simply ignore the law because few people know about and exercise their private right of action.
Jurisdiction
State courts are expressly given jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3). The following federal court cases have found that state courts have sole jurisdiction under this law:
International Science and Technology Institute, Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997)
Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corporation, 1997 WL 768609 (5th Cir. 12/15/97);
Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecommunications Premium Services, LTD, 975 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
Make them eat one can of spam, for each piece of spam, they have sent. Do the same to e-mail spammers.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
With luck maybe we'll be getting a piece of the pie when this is over.
The way these class action suits usually go, what you'll actually get is a coupon for $10 off the purchase of your next penis enlarger.
Evil is the money of root.
Seriously, at least twice a week I get these calls (and usually at around 3 or 4AM...). And I have never had a fax machine hooked up to my phone line. No fun. But that leads to the question: How does somebody without a fax machine, and therefore unable to read how to get off their list, get off their list? (Assuming of course that they actually take people off the list if they request. But being spammers I doubt it.)
First of all, the article gets to a 2.2 trillion number by assuming that fax.com has sent 3 million faxes a day for the past four years. 365 X 4 x $500 x 3mil = 2.19 trillion. This number is based off boasts fax.com has made, not actual numbers of faxes sent out. Nor does the article take into consideration that the lawsuit isn't even a class-action lawsuit, but rather a private suit by two people, who are suing fax.com over all the faxes they've recieved at home and at work. The 2.2 trillion figure is a number a bad reporter pulled out if thin air to make a boring news article grab people's attention. If the judge in the case for some reason decided to order the remedy against fax.com be made class action, then yes they'd be out of buisness, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't a class action lawsuit, and the judge isn't going to rule that way. That being said, if these two guys win, it opens the door for a class action suit (which would easily exceed fax.com's ability to repay by many many times even if the 2.2 trillon number is bogus). Assuming fax.com has any money left trying to defend itself from the FCC and private lawsuits like this one.
BTW if you want to know why the judge won't make the damages class action it's simple. Fax.com isn't going to argue for it, and these two guys lawyers want to hit fax.com to pay the legal fees, as well as take a percantage of the damages. If they lost a class action lawsuit they'd be shut down completely, and any outstanding creditors would have first take on any assets they had left.
And if they loose the private lawsuit that would essentially kill their junk fax buisness anyways.
And while it may someday affect spam rulings, it's already pretty clear that e-mail messages don't fall under the anti-junk fax law. Potentially, loosing a private lawsuit could force them into converting into an UCE company, since that is only illegal in a handful of places.
Only incoming messages you're required to pay for are covered under that law, like say cell phone calls (if you're billed by the minute) or SMS messages (if you're charged per message recieved.) Frankly, I'd rather that UCEs be required to pay a fee (per spam), and be required to put ADV is both machine and human readable text in the subject line. The fee could cover the costs incurred by ISPs to carry all that mail traffic, and by requiring ADV in the subject people and companies especially can filter it out easily.
The upside of 'legitmizing UCE' is that instead of a 'war on spam' we can just focus on the people who are unwilling to play by the offically sanctioned rules of the game.
Basically if legit companies want to send out mass-mailings, they would have a legitimate way to do so, and so they wouldn't offer affiliate programs who harvest and spam people to make money. Even scam artists who wanted to look legit might be forced to follow the official rules, because it would be too easy to say, "well if it doesn't have ADV in the subject then it's a scam for 100% sure.."
The problem is that it's almost as much of a war to get established rules set up. People have been talking about ADV tags on usenet almost since when spamming still meant cross-posting to more than one or two newsgroups (or at all, depending on who's defintion you go by).
So glad you put up that email, truefluke. I was desperate to put up a sarcastic response but didn't want it to degenerate into Euros vs USians flaming.
Man, the US legal system is screwed if lawyers can go to court and make those sort of suggestions - what kind of sick drugs _do_ they feed trainee lawyers at college? I am so glad you are laughing as well...
That lawyer is bringing your whole legal system into disrepute, let's face it, declarations like this mean the rest of the world will completely disregard anything else your lawyers try to tell the world. Maybe they shouldn't let lawyers use calculators with more than 6-character displays.
Disclaimer: our lawyers are probably equally as mad, they just show it in more subtle ways...
Report them as crank phone calls to the police.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
But thats a waste of perfectly good Spam. Make them eat the equivalent in plain old potted meat instead!
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
But I kinda have a hard time taking a site called "pingalingadingdong.com" seriously.
dr evil voice: ... BILLION!?!a haa...
Why ask for 2.2 trillion when you can ask for 2.2
Muahahaha...muhaha...mmmmuuuahahahhah
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
If only Judge Collar-Kotelly could charge such a fine to Microsoft for its monopoly practices.
In the UK 1 Billion = 10^12 (Million Million)
In the US 1 Billion = 10^9 (thousand Million)
(Check your dictionaries people!)
I _assume_ that in the US, a trillion is a UK Billion.
Q. Is timothy British?
Any yes before you ask, it can get confusing for us UK physists dealing with big numbers when reading US work!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
I had a battle with fax.com a couple of years ago. By fluke i happened to find out who was ordering the spam. It was the Center for missing and exploited children. They were selling advertising to various people and trying to use the charity as a cover to do what is illegal to do commercially. (anti-telemarketing laws specifically exempt political and non-profits from laws governing them, but this does not apply to faxes).
So I complained to Sun and Computer Associates (the two biggest donors to the Center) and very quickly I got an appology from the center's director and the junk fax stopped. Until about 2 months ago when it started up again.
text of letter:
We are sorry that you have been inconvenienced
with the fax transmissions sent out by Fax.com.
If you will provide me with your fax numbers, I
will contact Fax.com and request that they remove
your numbers immediately from their database.
Our ability to use Fax.com to distribute posters
of missing children has been a great success and
has resulted in the recovery of a number of
missing children. We certainly understand your
request and will make every effort to stop the
transmissions to you when you provide me with your
fax numbers.
I am forwarding a copy of your fax message request
to Fax.com
--
Ben J. Ermini, Director
NCMEC Missing Children's Division
703-837-6236
and the response to my reply:
Thank you for your rapid response. I have directed Fax.com to remove your fax
number from their database.
Fax.com has assured us that all NCMEC poster fax transmissions are sent to fax
numbers that have agreed to participate in the poster distribution program.
We are sorry for any inconvenience that we have caused you.
Ben J. Ermini
---
so once again spammers lie. My fax is unlisted etc, and never opted into any such program.
sorry if this is long winded by fax spammers are even worse than email spammers in my book
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2
Hehe, nobody can tell you're from Mars when you post on the internet, eh?
Nah, I haven't a scoobie when it comes to legal stuff either. But the common sense kicks in when these guys start quoting the sort of numbers kids shout at each other in the school playground. It's really daft isn't it, I mean, I know it's all a game (no real pun intended...maybe..) and there's some sort of legal diplomacy game going on, you shout a big number and you end up with a realistic number-- but it just seems so *infantile*! I am sure there are some really sound US lawyers doing great work, saving innocent kids from prison etc, but all we hear in the UK are people suing each other for a billion dollars, suing MacDonalds for a million dollars because they split hot coffee over themselves...
I am so glad I don't have to work in an environment with people like that...
aaarghhh... I don't know about you but me and my bro always came home from school really smashed up because we were pretending to be superman and jumped off a tree onto a concrete playground or summink. We cried, teacher told us we were daft, patched us up with a plaster or two, we went home, our mum told us we were daft, we knew we were stupid, we didn't sue the school for a trillion dollars or anything (then we went back to school the next day and did the same thing and smashed ourselves up again - damn, being a kid was so much *fun*!).
Actually, in Britain both are used, but calling 1.000.000.000 a billion is the most "modern" usage. While millard is legal English, it's not very common anymore. In French and Norwegian for instance, milliard is still commonly used for 1.000.000.000, though, and billion for 1.000.000.000.000
I keep reading the first amendment over and over. I just can't find where it says I have to pay for another person's free speech. Can somone enlighten me as to how this is a "Free Speech" issue as opposed to a theft of services issue?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I was thinking that it should be possible to create a tarpit for junk faxers.
The premise is that almost every junk fax we get at work has 1234567 as the calling telephone number. Using a filter on the incoming number that detects this and similar obviously bogus numbers, the machine could continue to take the fax forever (and not print it of course).
The obvious problem is that it takes up the fax line, but if you have 2 fax lines or set it to be tarpit in the middle of the night (when this crap often arrives), then we might have a solution.
Also, please remember to take junk faxes and recycle them so that other people in the office don't see them. Some of your dumber office-mates might actually respond to the fax.
I also write down the 800 numbers listed on it to call on pay phones when I have the spare time (like waiting at airports) to waste the spammers' money.
After canceling my whining liberal newspaper earlier this summer, they are now tossing a free advertising section on my lawn, essentially all the paper ads and classifieds w/o the news and editorials. Now, every week, I have to walk over, pick up this unsolicited garbage tossed from a drive by delivery person and heave it into the trash. Some of the neighbors are just tossing them back onto the street.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
A more fitting punishment, adopt sharia law and treat spamming as theft of service. Cut the bastard's hands off.
Yup, in 1960s movies british billion = million million.
However, in 2002 newspapers, web sites, television programs, speech down pubs, a billion is 1000 million. In the last ten years I have only ever heard million million refered to as a billion on US websites like slashdot, or in black-and-white (or possibly scarey technicolour) movies.
I bet you think we use shillings and ha'penny bits too.
Really?
How about blacks-only water faucets in private hotels?
Hope that helps on your lawyer quest.
"The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."
MARSH v. ALABAMA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
326 U.S. 501
I'm the best IRC client ever.
It's illegal to make automated calls to people. So if you actually did pick up when it rang, the machine wouldn't start talking to you. Sometimes it just hangs up, which is quite disconcerting.
They've been doing that for several years.
Best Slashdot Co
The courts will decide if it's free speech or theft of services. Could be interesting from an anti-spam issue.
Best Slashdot Co
Alright, e-mail spammers are scum, and should be shot.
Fax spammers are worse. Not only do they consume your time, they waste your paper. Fax spammers should be stoned to death. But that's unlikely, so I hope Fax.com loses, and I hope that their executives are sent to jail.
Some of the more legit spammers will provide a number you can fax back a request to have your number removed from the database.
:)
Others don't provide a fax number, only a 1 (800) number for you to call to place your order (right!). When I get one of these, I set the fax machine to auto-dial the number and let it redial for a couple hours or so (but only if it's an 800 number).
No, that's out of date. In the UK a billion usually means a thousand million now as well.
Only if you speak American English (as many people in the UK seem to be going!)
See this
And this
They both echo the Oxford English dictionary! (ie a US billion = thousand million , UK billion = million million)
As I said, it gets very confusing in the UK. Esp when accountants (who deal with trendy things and small numbers + always seem to talk in US billions) start talking to us Physics types (who use big numbers all the time and therefore always use UK billions)
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Woohooo! I can hardly wait until the spammers are irradicated! Just imagine how much faster the Internet will be when it doesn't have to carry their flotsam anymore!
The ones we really need to clobber with a cluebat are the insipid morons that actually buy the crap the spammers are selling. They'd quit doing it if the flaming idiots that send money for "penis enlargers" didn't make it worth their while.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Why not start an advertising firm like this, fax...email...telemarketing...all kinds of spam.
You can charge the spammers (advertisers) exorbitant amounts of money to use your spamming services. Your 'recipient' base would not only opt-in, but they would be paid.
After reading fax.com's FAQ entry about how many faxes can be sent (limited only by your budget), it occured to me that we, the people who have to put up with this crap should be getting paid as well.
I'd gladly delete emails all day, and let my fax go all night, and play phone-retard with telemarketers if it means that I'm gonna get a fat check every month.
I mean, we as people have certain resources (eyes and ears) that others are exploiting to get rich...Shouldn't we join in on the fun?
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
The lawyer's not being predatory here, he's asking for the amount prescribed by law. Granted, he's being greedy setting up the class-action, but I'm sure he knows that there's no way in hell that he'll collect anything within five orders of magnitude of what he's asking for.
The bragging rights of winning that sort of judgement have got to be worth something.
Another report in The Mercury News says Kirsch is suing for $500 billion. One of his advisors said he had to be talked down to that amount.
I currently get at least 75 spams per day. Give or take, I have received on average 12 per day over the last 4 years. Thats about 17,500 spams...
Can I sue for $8.76 million??
I was at Disney World over the 2000 New Year (over 2 years ago), and they were doing the 100 year anniversary then. They even had the big 100 on the globe at Epcot Center. Maybe by 100 year anniversary, they mean it lasts 100 years...
Don't mess with Texas.
They both echo the Oxford English dictionary! (ie a US billion = thousand million , UK billion = million million)
That doesn't mean anything. Dictionaries only tell you how something si being used. They can't tell you who's right.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
According to http://www.fax.com/Services/mail.asp, "Fax.com is now offering bulk e-mail broadcasting services."
To give you an idea of how insanely much $2.2 trillion is, consider the women who sued McDonalds for spilling a cup of coffee on herself.
She was eventually awarded half-a-million dollars. You'd have to douse yourself with almost 300 million gallons of McDonalds coffee in order to get the $2.2 trillion.
I get calls from a fax machine pretty regularly (sometimes multiple calls around 3 am). I called the phone company (Nevada Bell) and they said they couldn't trace the calls! I suppose they tell the same thing to the FBI when trying to track a "real" criminal.
Perhaps someone should post a list of their fax #s. I'm sure we could take them offline too, unintentionally, of course.
That doesn't mean anything. Dictionaries only tell you how something si being used. They can't tell you who's right.
Have you considered that the people who are right are the majority?
Long story behind that domain name.
Kinda has a ring to it though doesn't it? hehe.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I don't know the first thing about small claims court.
Does it cost me money up front? If so, forget it. I'm so broke, it would be more effective for me to cancel my phone service. haha
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Disneyland began construction in 1954...
I used to get crap faxes at about 2-4am when I lived in Vancouver (next big city in my province). I eventually called my phone company and had them traced... the local faxers could be blocked and/or got warnings. The ones that were faxing me from China though... not much I could do about them, seems my home number used to be somebody's fax. One of the problems, make sure the idiots of the phone company don't give you an old business fax number for your residential...
1,000 = one thousand
1,000,000 = one million
1,000,000,000 = one billion
1,000,000,000,000 = one trillion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = one quadrillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one quintillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one hex?tillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one sextillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one octillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one nonillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one dectillion
10^100 = one googol
(10^100)^2 =? one google plex
(10^100)^(zillion) = one gazillion zillion dollars!
Eat at Joe's.
Spam, porn and pipebombs recipes are what pays for the internet!!!
Everybody has a purpose in life, maybe mine is to lurk in slashdot.
The government IS the people.
Those freedoms that cannot be abridged by government, those mean that, no matter how much your fellow countrymen bitch, whine, beg, and fuss, they CANNOT cause certain types of laws to be made.
They should be worried about it setting standards for punishing spammers, considering they have entered that market as well.
say you want 2.2trillion dollars from somebody and NOT hold your pinky to your mouth?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You say "2.2 billion" instead of trillion in the message body. There is no substitute for proofreading.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Um, I hate spammers as much as anyone else, but 2.2 trillion dollars? Does anyone realize what an ungodly amount of money that is? That's just beyond all credibility. This idiot will be lucky if it doesn't get thrown out of court. It reminds me of a playground, where one kid breaks the other kid's toy, and the kid who's toy it is yells "I'm gonna sue you for a trillion dollars!!!!" Well same thing here.
But not as good as the $100 TRILLION the relatives of 9/11 victims are going for against various Saudi interests. If you ask me, this ridiculous lawsuit does nothing but dishonor the memories of the victims, and gives me the impression that their relatives are trying to squeeze as much cash as possible out of the tragedy. I swear, everyone in the US has totally lost it.
-R
This is NOT the first time that class action suits have been brought up, and I think it is VERY interesting, because some claim the law was only intended to give individual claimants the chance to get damages. Still, class action suits like this have been won before. Funny -- even fax.com
has been sued before!.
There's also the question of whether junk fax statutory damages can be appropriate for class action, although obviously this is only one perspective.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
"It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine..."
So then, with federal prohibition on any such activity how can Fax.com even exist as a viable, legal, company?
Check out the FCC site... if you actually read the article, the numbers make sense, too.
http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/news/080802junkfax.html
Have you considered that the people who are right are the majority?
Has it occurred to you that the dictionary may be behind the times? Based on your complaints, what is correct is changing.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Sec (b)(1)(B) It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B).
(2)(B) exempts non-advertisement calls.
Heh, don't fool yourself! That "telemarketing opt-out law" is really there only to benefit the state, not the consumer!
I live in St. Louis, Missouri and recently got a "newsletter" with information on the succes of the no-call list. Basically, every time you get harassed and go to the trouble to fill out a 2 page long report about it, you get nothing. Not even confirmation that something was done about the problem. Missouri, however, sues for large sums of money, all of which they pocket afterwards. Despite their whole case being based on your written testimony, you receive no compensation.
In most cases, you don't even get your immediate problem resolved. Missouri doesn't go after every single business that calls you after you're on their "no call" list. They only chase after the easiest targets; the repeat offenders that generate hundreds of complaints from different residents. They love to brag about slapping "Miss Cleo" with a fine for her telemarketing calls trying to sell you on the "Psychic Hotline" -- but her fine was peanuts compared to what she rakes in on those 900 numbers. She probably still came out ahead on her telemarketing campaign after paying Missouri their fines.
As for closing those "remaining loopholes", if they don't - they have a completely bogus law in place, IMHO. Right now, those loopholes make the "no call list" practically worthless. Currently, it says anyone is allowed to solicit you if they're someone you've done previous business with. That means you can get calls offering you credit cards and loans all day long, if you ever opened a checking account with a large bank. Ever get your carpets cleaned with a firm like Stanley Steemer? Too bad then... can't stop them from telemarketing you randomly. It also exempts charities from calling you. I get countless calls from those places soliticing funds for the "retired firefighters" or "retired police officers", and I can't do a thing to stop it.
Actually, it's a waste of perfectly good SPAM.
In response to your reply to my previous post, I submit the following?
What about them? Congress passed federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination; it based its authority on the Constitution itself (chiefly, the commerce clause) and several Constitutional ammendments. The federal courts (including the Supreme Court) upheld Congress's ability to do this.
But...in court cases brought over segregation, only states were brought to task for violating Constitutional rights for failing to enforce these laws or for enforcing their own unConstitutional laws.
Private companies or individuals accused of discrimination were charged with violating federal laws or sued under causes of action created by enabling states related to these laws...but none were accused of "violating Constitutional rights," at least not in the strict legal sense.
Please remember, being able to write code or use a soldering iron does not qualify you to perform sugery, fly a commercial jetliner or to conduct an audit adhering to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. It also does not qualify you to practice law or dispense legal advice. My advice: keep your day job.
Peace.
I don't get it. Spammers are the bain of pretty much everyone's online existance. Yet there are a few people on slashdot who are bitching about 2.2T being too much to pay. What the fuck? Spammers are the devil and they should be sent back to that stinking pit, penniliess. Fucking low life scum. The day that my inbox isn't overflowing with penile corrective surgery offers and my fax machine isn't running out of ink and paper from 'play pranks on your boss' adverts is the day I will piss all over a spammer. Stupid Fucktards. I HATE SPAM. Jail time, is excess but 2.2T isn't :)
Marijuana shouldn't be illegal either, but thats another story.
In response to your reply to my previous post, I submit the following:
"[Marsh], a Jehovah's Witness, came onto the sidewalk we have just described, stood near the post office and undertook to distribute religious literature. In the stores the corporation had posted a notice which read as follows: "This Is Private Property, and Without Written Permission, No Street, or House Vendor, Agent or Solicitation of Any Kind Will Be Permitted." Appellant was warned that she could not distribute the literature without a permit and told that no permit would be issued to her. She protested that the company rule could not be constitutionally applied so as to prohibit her from distributing religious writings. When she was asked to leave the sidewalk and Chickasaw she declined. The deputy sheriff arrested her and she was charged in the state court with violating Title14, 426 of the 1940 Alabama Code which makes it a crime to enter or remain on the premises of another after having been warned not to do so. Appellant contended that to construe the state statute as applicable to her activities would abridge her right to freedom of press and religion contrary to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. This contention was rejected and she was convicted.... "
So Marsh was appealing her conviction, claiming the state law under which she was prosecuted violated her Constitutional rights. It's true, the town in which the events of this case happened was a "company town," in which all the houses were built and/or owned by a corporation which employed the residents. But note - the court said that it didn't make any difference whether the home in question was in a "company town" or a conventional municipality - Marsh's Constitutional rights were the same regardless.
Most importantly, note that the homeowner in question and the corporation that owned the town were not parties to this (Constitutional) law case. They may be been parties to other cases, but not this one. Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thank you for your elegant example.
case excerpt from the University of Missouri - Kansas City website.
We stopped getting fax-spam at every office I've worked at shortly after I made a "fax bomb" and taught the receptionist how to use it. A Fax Bomb is a piece of completely black paper with just enough white space at the top to hold a short message: something along the lines of, "Don't spam us, dipshit." Faxing it back to the spammer made the point nicely, by using up twice the time and toner of the spamfax we originally got. And they never bothered us after that.
Laws and litigation wouldn't even be necessary if people were simply provided easy-to-use ways to get revenge for things like this. Sure, there'd be chaos for a little while, but it'd be entertaining, and when the dust settled, you can bet that spamming/telemarketing/etc. would quickly go out of style!
ST
Oh yeah, P.S. How do I exercise my right not to listen to a fifty-foot billboard erected right in my line of sight on the freeway? Just a thought...
This, along with the SMS thread from yesterday, raises an interesting point. What fax, email, and SMS spam have in common is that the reception is automated. If I get a telemarketing call, I can hang up before they've had a chance to deliver their message. But, by the time I see a fax or an email or a text message so I can make that decision, they've already sent the whole thing to me. The same problem comes up with recordings left on answering machines, it seems... I hadn't encountered that yet. (BTW, many digital answering machines allow you to set a limit on the length of the message recorded, so you can cut them off at 30 seconds.)
Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government can't prevent you from communicating an idea except for under very specific circumstances where that idea is very likely to cause harm. It is NOT a guarantee that you can inundate any particular person with your communication. Most importantly, it is not an obligation on the part of the recipient to pay for your message (in paper, toner, tied up phone lines, time spent downloading, per message fees, etc.). Maybe we need a constitutional amendment that protects the individual's right to dispose of their resources how they see fit.
Junk snail mail is a different animal, because the cost of sending out the message is (1) non-trivial and (2) borne by the sender. Between printing and postage, they are spending several cents per message, which necessarily limits their willingness to send out mail to known unwilling folks. It also ensures that the practice will be limited to "legitimate" companies (or at the very least, ones with decent-sized budgets). The self-limiting mechanisms of traditional junk mail tend to keep it at a manageable level.
We do need to re-evaluate freedom of expression in light of automated message reception. It does change the scope and mechanism of free expression a great deal, as well as shifting the costs (monetary and non-monetary) onto the recipient. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Who's paying for the advertisement? The advitizer, or the advertizee?
I think that answers that question.
The state does benefit from the lawsuits, but I must say it's been nearly 100% effective for me since they started it.
I'm not a huge Jay Nixon fan, but I really appreciate him getting this program into effect even if it was mainly to benefit the state. That's just "theoretically" less tax money out of my pocket.
As far as the loopholes... I personally don't get any calls from companies that I did business with in the past. My credit card company has called a few times but after telling them to quit soliciting a few times they finally stopped.
Also, as far as the non-profit orgs calling, they did before too so you aren't any worse off. I have caller ID and I generally don't answer any calls labeled as private or unknown.
I agree with you, it's not perfect, but so far it's made a world of difference. I think most companies simply remove Missouri area codes from their calling lists as I think it costs them money to see if we're actually on the lists. Whether it does or not, it costs them some amount of time to compare their list with the no-call list.
I would love to get some confirmation though when I submit a report even though I only submitted one once.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
when you have a type of spam which actually costs the recipient money.
Make the black paper longer, and tie the ends together >:->
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
After which you arrive at Million Million, which is a Billion in the UK.
p.s. The US way of doing it makes ore sense to me. With the UK way you might end up saying "thousand" two times to read the number 22,222,222,222. That strikes me as repetitive.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I agree the company is bad. I hate spam, full stop. But the figures being quoted are why US lawyers and this part of the US legal system are a laughing stock in other countries. You are honestly saying that a lawyer is going to try to sue a company for the GNP of half the countries on planet Earth because of fax junk?
Is it like this in all legal cases in the USA, say, if somebody bumped into my auto and damaged the fender, would my lawyer try to get me ten million dollars when quite clearly a couple of hundred bucks to cover the spare part and a mechanic for an hour would be just fine?
Istick by my disclaimer, our lawyers are probably equally mad, but they are just a bit more subtle, you know? :-))
1. Company A opens new office, obtains three hundred consecutive phone numbers for extensions in this office.
2. One month later, Fax.com wardials all three-hundred numbers, looking for fax machines.
3. Once Fax.com finds fax machines, it adds them to the 'spam list'. Everyone who picks up a fax off the machine assumes that someone else mistakenly signed up for a fax list, not knowing that Fax.com illegally wardialed that number.
In my company's case, all of our deskphones go to a Glenayre voicemail system that can also receive faxes (listening for the fax send tones while playing the greeting.) Thus, every single deskphone was signed up, and people started received these crap faxes on their desk voicemails.
Obviously, "If you want to enter another fax number to be excluded, please call back" 300 times wasn't going to work for us. So I called their exclusion number and selected the option for their "marketing and new business department." Needless to say, after a threatening voicemail, someone called me back and removed all 300 numbers.
Oh, and I should mention:
2001-12-12 00:35:40 Fax spammers flaunting federal laws? (askslashdot,privacy) (rejected)
Yeah, yeah, it's flouting, not flaunting.
I'd say it was a scam.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Wierdness. What is 1E9 called in the UK, then? Has it ever been determined when the usages diverged?
Get the names of the legislators that abstained. They obviously abstained so that fax.com could continue, and in all probability they would get nice campaign contributions.
List the names here, with source. I'll be launching a news web site that will have a link to drm legislation and attacks on fair use rights by the entertainment cartel. It will list each senator and congressman, and whether they support Coble, Berman, Hollings, and Valenti's bills. I'll include the state legislators on the fax issue. They need to be exposed to the light of day so that they can be voted out of office. A site listing each legislator, and their position on the issues, with previous votes as proof is what I will be creating, and what is needed to help protect our rights.
Help by getting the names of the legislators, and provide a link for source.
Any yes before you ask, it can get confusing for us UK physists dealing with big numbers when reading US work!
Isn't that why we have scientific notation?
In a similar act of stupidity, a resident of New York lit a stick of dynamite to see how fast the fuse would burn. Having not planned his next step, and unable to extinguish the fuse, he threw it out of the window, where it landed in the street and killed sixty people. Does this guy deserve jail time for his stupidity?
Yes. At least. No question.
The bit with the battery could be just as dangerous if the resulting explosion took out some vital wiring in the 'plane. Or just blew a hole in the head of the guy sitting next to him. Either way, it's dangerous stupidity, and the guy needs a jail term for it. Whether it was simple or not is irrelevant.
This from someone who thinks many of our (au) laws are overdone, and the US laws are worse.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hmm. Given that they have something approaching 100 billion in $$$CASH$$$* available (and that's just Microsoft proper, nothing said about affiliates, subsiduaries, directors etc), 2 thousand billion in liquefiable assets doesn't seem too far fetched at all. Throw in the $$$CASH$$$ resources of Bill, Steve and a few other executives plus a flock of related companies, and you'd be well on your way (I guess over half a trillion $$$) to paying the fine out of $$$CASH$$$ - without even having to sell anything!
Yo, Trey Gates must really be rattling in his boots over those `stern measures' the DoJ is taking against him. People wonder about whether Linux will torpedo him on technical merit. Taking into account everything he's stashed away over the years, pies he has fingers in, etc, the dude could probably rustle up near on ten trillion hit points IRL if the need arose.
And you can bet he's too cheap to spend even a measly $10G on the world's biggest conveyor belt.
* this is one time I miss the BLINK tag
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So... the police are allowed to suppress many people's right to free speech (the mob shouting the man on the soapbox down) in order to protect one person's right to free speech (the man on the soapbox).
And this is constitutional?
If it wasn't before, it should now be obvious to you why the US is a legal minefield.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It's kinda funny that the class action lawsuit against terrorists is just for 1 Trillion, but the one against a company that spams fax is 2.2 trillion. Hmm, would you rather be
a) Hit by an airplane, stuck in a burning building and have the building fall over, so you can hit the ground?
or
b) Have someone send you faxes that you don't want.
Now I think that both of these are legit suits. But really, faxes vs terrorism. Which one should pay the victims?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Yes, a day late and a dollar short.
I dont disagree with you in the least. However, when you open up your fax machine for public use, your rights will become circumscribed by the rights of the people using the fax macine. Specifically, you will be unable to have them arrested for tresspass to chattels. Sue them for damages, sure, but that's not what the "unauthorized use of property" argument gets to. The agrgument you want to make is that the advertiser negligently caused you damages, and provided you no recourse.
So, to the question: "If I was sick and bound to my bed in my house, unable to use the phone or email, does that give them the right to enter my house without my consent just to try an talk me into buying their discount coffin?"
The answer would be that "if you had made your bed/house so public a location that his right to commercial speech was superior to your privacy pneumbra/property right."
I am also a lawyer.
Are you sure? At that point, they don't have much life left to lose...
Also, (1) it would be fairly easy and cheap to simply loan them your own O2 tank for the trip or in some cases feed them from an airframe supply (2) standard wheelchairs won't fit through the doors or down the aisles on many 'planes so you'd probably be using the airline's chair anyway.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing