Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fighting Spam - Using the DMCA for Good?

Posted by Cliff on from the smacking-your-friendly-neighborhood-spammer dept.

Tesseract asks: "Since I run my own mail server, and have several processes in place to stop spam from hitting my mailbox, could it not be construed as a violation of the DMCA for spammers to 'bypass' my anti-spam protections? On a similar note, wouldn't retention of my copyrighted information (email address) be a violation of copyright law? It would seem that [parts of section 1201 might cover such situations]. How about this reference, as well? Isn't there some way to turn this legal nightmare back on itself kung-fu style?"

6 of 26 comments (clear)

  1. DMCA doesn't apply here. by Zack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DMCA forbids circumventing encryption to get to copyrighted material. I fail to see how you can construe sending mail as that.

    Secondly, your email address is a fact, and can not be copyrighted. No less than your street address.

    1. Re:DMCA doesn't apply here. by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, how'd this article get posted? Does the mention of "DMCA" and "spam" in the same article get it automatically accepted?

      Sheesh...

    2. Re:DMCA doesn't apply here. by Tom7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the spammer is bypassing spamassassin in order to download your mail then there might be some trouble with copyright or even the DMCA. Unfortunately, spamassassin doesn't protect your inbox from other people downloading your mail, it protects from the delievery of spam. The only work being copied is the spammer's mail, and the software in question doesn't control access to that or any other copyrighted work.

      In any case, these kinds of twisted arguments would fall apart in court. Judges don't think like hackers! Their job is to interpret the meaning of a law (of which a large part is the actual intent of the law), which means that you need a clear argument, not one based on stretches of the imagination and technicalities.

  2. DCMA is not useful. And remember by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it could be useful against spam, the same argument can be turned against you and be made to prevent deep linking, etc.

    Your email address is a simple URL, and the email becomes an access_log entry. The spam protection is a referral-link + user-agent check.

    Do you see where this is going?

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  3. What? by Steve+Cox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah right, because the DCMA is enforceable outside of the US.

    Also - what kind of copyright do you think your emails has? NONE! Maybe you could trademark your domain, but:

    a. It would cost a BOMB for an internationally recognised trademark (remember - the world is bigger than the US).
    b. It would cost a BOMB to enfoprce it - you have to enforce it otherwise you lose it.

    The best you can do is what everyone else does - only give your primary email address to people you trust. For mailing lists, etc. create email addresses with the various free email services out there.

    Steve.

  4. Re:Don't grant it the legitimacy by ikeleib · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do beleive your theory on constitutionality of law is incorrect. Laws are not judged to be constitutional because several courts have cited it in rulings. A law can be thrown out at any time as unconstitutional and the final arbiter is the Supreme Court. If said law is ruled to unconstitutional, convictions under that law are held to be invalid.