Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Spammers Win Major Court Battle
Brian Bruns writes "Well, the antispammers have won a major battle against EMarketersAmerica.org (now offline, but mirror here). The judge involved with the case has dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that all of the spammers arguments were denied. The win is a big one for the antispam community." It's always good to see my inbox come out on the winning side of a court decision. Sounds like the case was fun to watch as well.
The judge involved ... has dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that all of the spammers arguments were denied.
I guess there are some things in life that are just plain wrong.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
"Our real costs are less than what are quoted, but we still need money."
So what are the "real costs", then? How much do you currently have, and how much more do you require?
"Give us money" will work a lot better with a real accounting of where said money is going....
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
This is fantastic, but how long till the boca raton gang move to vietnam or somewhere similar to continue their "business".
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, and some of you may have heard me say this before. So, before you start blasting my idea (or praising it?), know that I dislike the DMCA as much as the next guy and that I am interested in feedback about the legal issues here.
As I understand it, the DMCA makes it illegal to even try to circumvent any security system on a digital device. I define digital security systems (and I don't think I am alone) as any hardware or software that keeps private information inside of a system and unwanted information and software (viruses, hackers, Trojan-horses and the like) outside of the system. In this case, my spam-blocking software can be considered a security measure. So then, any spammer that adds random characters, hides words in images or any other techniques to get through my blocking software is then intentionally circumventing my security software. If this is all true, then can't we persecute spammers on the bases of the DMCA. I think that this may lead to two benefits. First, we may be able to slow or stop spam in the US. Secondly, those that put the DMCA there in the first place (namely big businesses) would have a reason to fight the DMCA. So, where is the flaw in my logic here?
No man is an island... But I wouldn't mind having a bigger moat.
The 200-odd spam kingpins are malignant bastards. They are not idiots.
> And why do companies keep using spam for advertising?
The customers of Eddy Marin and the 200-odd spam kingpins are both malignant bastards and idiots.
If you hire Eddy Marin to spam for you, Eddy Marin makes money whether you make money or not. If you're an idiot and a malignant bastard, you'll hire an Ethikul E-Bidniz Murketeer to "help you get the message out to a 100% confirmed opt-in list of targets, the EEBM will gladly take your money and ruin your reputation (Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Martha Stewart Online).
So yeah, that's why, even despite a near-zero response rate and the visceral hatred his marketing campaigns bring towards his customers, Eddy Marin gets up in the morning and goes to work.
So why do they keep coming to work? Are they idiots? Or just malignant bastards?
Neither - they are con men.
why do companies keep using spam for advertising?
Take a look at some of the other replies to post, and you'll see why.. people see lots of spam, so they erroneously conclude that it works (after all, why would there be so much spam if it didn't work, they ask.)
It's all because spammers are con artists. They convince the stupid people (companies) that they can make money.. the net result is that the spammers get money, the stupid people get hosed, and everybody else gets spam.
The spammers then find another victim, and it all starts over again.