Slashdot Mirror
Spammer Sues SpamCop
wolfgang writes "Just wanted to send you word that notorious spammer Scott Richter, President of Email marketing firm OptinRealBig.com, has filed suit against Ironport, which runs anti-spam site Spamcop. According to Richter, Spamcop's initiatives have damaged the reputation of his company. Richter filed for $1 million in damages. A similar suit one year ago, filed by Eddy Marin and his Florida-based Emarketersamerica.org against Spamhaus, was thrown out of court last October." We've mentioned Richter before.
it seems that now doing the right thing will get you sued, oh wait there's no suprise here.
The law flat out says that he CAN SPAM. Say what you want about the guy, he's a big follower of truth in labeling....
Tthe key event is that when every you give your e-mail address to any site on the Internet you usually have the chance to opt in to getting commercial e-mail. Opt in with one of Richter's site, and just like the name of his company implies, you opt in REAL BIG to absolutely anybody who wants to Spam you via him. Oh, the dangers of leaving a pre-checked checkbox still checked when you submit the form.
Once you're caught in Richter's web, the only way out is to send an unsubscribe request email exactly the way that the CAN-SPAM says you should. Sure, responding to the unsubscribe link is a great way to get more spam from unethical spammers... but it's the only way to stop getting spam from a compling-to-the-letter-of-the-law spammer. He's untouchable, he'll plead guilty as charged to being scum... but he's breaking no laws.
SpamCop's free to spread its low opinion about OptInRealBig, but they have to be very careful they keep what they say in opinion territory. If SpamCop's willing to publish nameless acusations that OptInRealBig is sending e-mail to people who didn't really opt in, they'd better be sure those people have their facts straight. Richter's counter is that all these people really did opt in, they just don't remember when they did so. If they'd simply provide their e-mail address, Richter could likely tell them at what site and when they made their mistake of signaling that they were opting in, and if they've just send a proper e-mail to his unsubscribe address, he'll gladly unsubscribe them. But since they won't disclose their address, he can't do much for them.
Isn't that a lot like suing the credit reporting companies because you went bankrupt and they put you on their "do not extend credit" list? You could call it "tortious interference" with your ability to get a credit card or a mortgage.
I think that's been tried many times and hasn't worked. Why would this?
.sig: file not found
The bright spot for me is that SpamCop must be putting some kind of dent in Richter's business if Richter feels like he's got to sue to make SpamCop go away.
Funny how the tricky guys are the ones who talk about using the legal system to "send a message" to anyone who might defy them.
PanIP, the RIAA, and Scott Richter all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Their message seems to be we may not be entitled to a dime but don't you dare defy us, or we'll press this lawsuit until you're bankrupt.
Just lovely having people like this around.
One quote from the article that made me laugh out loud was this one: Oh, yeah, I bet. If Spitzer wanted to settle for $100,000 and Richter turned him down, Spitzer would've dropped it, don't you think?
The other quote that gave me quite a chuckle was, "Messing with us is a big mistake." Oh, yeah, nothing hurts a state attorney general's re-election bid worse than the ill will of a notorious and unrepentant spammer.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Is there a legal-defence fund set up for SpamCop? Of do we keep on giving money to the EFF?
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Legality
Freedom of speech always has restrictions.
Commercial speech is even more regulated.
Outright fraud and violation of other laws makes some spam illegal.
Selling drugs (ie viagra), porn (obscenity laws) is illegal in some places.
Some spammers hijack computers or use them without the owners consent. This is also illegal.
Most spamming is against the service contract that of the spammers ISP. Contract violation.
Many people do not want spam, and do not want to pay for it, this is why junk faxes are illegal.
Freedom of speech ends when you're yelling in my ear.
That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.
Are you sure it's really Richter's spam-crap you're getting, rather than somebody else's spam-crap? You've got to be sure you're accusing the right people when you go accusing...
Blocking unsolicited e-mail is also still totally legal.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Collect the facts you have, make darned sure they are all 100%, hand them to SpamCop. They use it in this suit to disprove the "they just dont remember" statement ( 1 counterexample disproves a claim... ). Be ready to testify.
emt 377 emt 4
Well, not quite ...
People - the constitution regulates what government can do -- not what private individuals (or /. editors) can do.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
That seems to be a valid contact address, but that's not their Opt-Out address.
The only place they have to publish their Opt-Out intructions is at the end of every e-mail they send. Can't tell the difference between Richter's e-mails and the other not-law-compliant spamemrs? That's your problem...
Yep, opting in is so easy you can do it without realizing you did. Opting out is so hard you have to strugle to get it done and will often fall into the trap of verifying that you read spam e-mail.
Oh, and you kill your spam before you read it? Oh well, you'll also end up killing the ever elusive opt-out info.
Somehow, this CAN-SPAM law isn't quite what we wanted in an anti-spam law...
That address STILL gets Richter's spam-crap. Just like every other spammer out there, he's a liar, a thief (ripping off the people paying him to advertise), and deserves to be gotten rid of.
Good. Then write up an affidavit, and send it to the Spamcop folks to help them in their lawsuit. Seriously. Mentioning it on /. won't do anything.
Because unless SpamCop can prove that people who never opted in actually got mail from this guy, he might just win, thanks to the wonderful CAN-SPAM act and the arguments laid out in the parent post. And then we're all screwed. And don't say it can't happen.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
In america, our first ammendment (Freedom of speech) rights SHOULD protect spammers.
Email is closer to a fax than postal mail. Spam is no different from faxing unsolicited advertisement flyers. It can incur significant costs on the recipient. Thus, it should not be protected.
Next?
Now this is a little like Kroger suing the Safeway Corporation because Safeway doesn't sell Kroger branded groceries.
Weird comparison, I know, but think of it. If you go into whatever Safeway Corp run supermarket in your area, it is expected that you are going to buy (say) Safeway Select brand root beer, and not Kroger. To do otherwise is a conflict of interest, and besides, the shopper just might like Safeway's brand of root beer over Kroger's.
Likewise, if one (eg, me) is on Spamcop's system, it is generally assumed by their defined purpose in life that the user is, at the bare minimum, passively anti-spam, and therefore does not actually desire spam - so accordingly they will either delete or report it.
Hopefully I made this at least fairly translucent.
This sig no verb.
Then economics and common sense indicate that your provider should get a new provider.
Or you should get a new provider if that option is available.
Isn't that how this whole thing is SUPPOSED to work? You are getting annoyed at the wrong people.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Why SpamCop blocking list is harmful
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
My uplink is cheap. I don't want (the boss)to spend twice as much for colo.
I don't want to spend a day and a half with no sleep in a cold-ass datacentre getting the network all set up after a mass move.
Let alone lifting those 4U cases.
Before you get the wrong idea, I use spamcop's DNSBL (and ORDB). I LIKE SpamCop. Current statistics are 94.5% blocked out of 18540 (and climbing *rapidly*) at around 4-5 connections per second, give or take.
Even if we interpret free speech to mean "say whatever you want", that doesn't mean I have to let you come into my house to say it.
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
Does anyone else find it odd that "optinrealbig.com" has no place on it to actually opt-in?
If Scott wants to stand on a street-corner and shout his views on why his advertising should be embraced by all users to all passers by, he is invited to do so.
He may run afoul of municipal noise bylaws, however. Freedom of speech is still no guarantee of freedom to be heard.
I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
The point is, the owner of the address did not opt in the address.
Unfortunately, you still are in a no-win situation. You posted your email address on a public site. I came across the address and decided that I would use your address instead of mine the next time I was prompted for one. I put you on Richer's mailing lists, now it's your job to opt-out.
Yes, this is a joke, but it does happen. It's an unfortunate consequence of no authentication or verification requirement when an email address is used to opt-in. As long as Richter can provide records of when someone visted the site and typed in your email address, he's won his case. He doesn't have to prove that it was actually you that typed it in.
Can't we all file small claims against him? Charge 2 hours labor for putting sufficient stops in our mail server and client software to stop his unsolicited mail.
Anyone want to organize it?
Send out a bunch of spam that is legit complete with
the adv in the subject line and that meets all requirements by the new can spam law. When your messages get blocked sue every single spam filtering
solution out of existance. Now to tell you the truth I cannot stand spammers but it is a hole in the law that one of them is going to exploit and win.
Got Code?
Reading the suit I am convinced they will win the suit. If they are sending spam that meets federal regulations they can and will win this suit. Now of course spammers suck but if they are playing by the federal rules then end of story their rights are being violated by spamcop, spam assasin and every other filtering solution if it does not let the message pass. They are morally wrong but legally right.
Got Code?
Better use two uzis. If one jams up, you still have the other.
> lighten up, it's a joke
It may have been a joke, but it's not a bad idea. Suppose they've cost us a billion dollars in wasted bandwidth, and divide that by 32. That's roughly $31 million dollars damage per employee, for a personal income of probably much less than a hundredth of that. To commit such an act requires a person to be incapable of feeling remorse. The only consequences they weigh are their own. They'd kill you for your wallet if they were 100% sure they could get away with it. They share the same personality traits as serial killers, terrorist leaders, SCO directors, and other villains that would break Godwin's law to mention.
The complaint filed alleges "Tortuous Interference with Contract,...
Um, I think the spammer means "tortious" (involving tort law), not "tortuous" (long and winding, IIRC). Don't lawyers proofread these things anymore? (Of course, without seeing the original filing, I can't tell whether the spammer's lawyer or the reporter is the doofus.)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
"free speech"
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech"
- only applies to political speech, not to commercial speech
(and NO, enhancment of body parts or \/|4G.R$ are not "political speech")
- only applies to the state preventing free speech
(and NO, this is my mail server and not the mail server of GWB)
- does not force anyone to listen
(and NO, you can't come into my living room to tell me about your internet pharmacy)
The Rules of Spam
Rule #0: Spam is theft.
Rule #1: Spammers lie.
Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.
Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
Chrissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.
Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.
Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring.
Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers.
In a loser-always-pays system, if he sues them and fails, he loses big, so he can't risk suing them even when he's right, because he doesn't have the resources to be 99% sure of beating them, and he knows that they can generate near-infinite legal costs that he'll have to cover. This seriously chills lawsuits by little guys against big companies.
In today's system in the US, he can risk suing them, because if he does at least a halfway-adequate job of making his case, the judge probably won't award legal costs to the winner. On the other hand, if he does try a case that's obviously pretty bogus and frivolous, he'll probably have to pay their legal costs, unless his case is _so_ bogus that it gets thrown out very early in the process, long before getting to trial.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Of course there are legitimate uses for a high volume email server.
Do you have any idea how many messages finance.yahoo or MSN's Money sends out every day when the stock market opens, at noon and at market close? The service would be completely useless if they couldn't get all of those messages sent out within a couple of minutes.
Or suppose I run an auction site, I can't very well have the outbid notices sitting an a mail queue for hours because it happens to be peak time of day.
Or suppose you are a site with automatic nightly search result emails. For example, monster has over 27 million automated searches. If they couldn't run over a million an hour, they couldn't send nightly messages. I'm not sure Monster does, but I know Dice does send its search results nightly.