Slashdot Mirror


OptInRealBig Wins Restraining Order On SpamCop

arikb writes "Some online newspapers are reporting that the infamous Scott Richter and his company OptInRealBig won a temporary restraining order against SpamCop. The TRO prevents SpamCop from sending complaints about OIRB to their provider or removing email addresses from the complaints it receives which regard OIRB. I think we will rue this day for years to come." Update: 05/12 16:43 GMT by T : The Ultimate Fartkno writes "HillsCap, a fed-up SpamCop user, is now organizing a class-action lawsuit to be brought against Richter and Opt-In. At least 1,000 signatures are needed, so tell your friends!"

11 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Chicken Little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think we will rue this day for years to come.
    Spare us the drama. No, we won't rue this day for years to come. It's a temporary restraining order that expires on May 20th. That's next week. If you blink, you'll miss it. Also, note this from TFA:
    IronPort did not file an opposition to OptIn's motion for a TRO, which OptIn filed May 4. The court reviewed the papers and issued its ruling on OptIn's motion May 10 without a hearing. IronPort has not yet filed an answer to OptIn's original complaint.
    Ironport owns Spamcop, for those who don't know. So where's the problem? The sky is not falling. Someone show the judge the Daily Show clip of Richter, his "high volume email deployment", and how he was made a fool. I'll reply if I find the link.
    1. Re:Chicken Little by merlin_jim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a thought; would this then require OIRB to positively identify which mass e-mail campaigns are theirs, so that SpamCop can comply with the injunction?

      I mean in order to comply, OIRB would have to provide identifying characteristics of their e-mails, right? Isn't that just what all the spam filter guys have been looking for? Identifying characteristics... yeah I know, easy to change next week, but in the meantime they'll have a definitive list, giving them a clue into this week's state of the art in spam obfuscation...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    2. Re:Chicken Little by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://dnsbl.net.au/files/show.wmv
      http://www.ian ai.net/jokes/DailyShow.ScottRichter. wmv
      http://www.badmonkey.ca/files/show.wmv

      Links to the Scott Richter clip!

      Maybe this will fix my crappy karma....May the Slashdot Effect Begin!!!!

      -thewldisntenuff

  2. Follow-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Video. Wonder how long that poor schmuck's server will last, but it's not on the Comedy Central page for the Daily Show that I can see.

  3. The Root of Spam by ca23e · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These companies will continue to use whatever legal tactics they can so long as the response rate to their spam makes it profitable to run their business.

    While I'm all for the further development of spam filters and blocking spammers, our inboxes will not be free of it till people stop BUYING from their advertisements.

    --
    A radioactive cat has 18 half-lives.
  4. Anti-Spammers? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I couldn't help by mention this part about Scott, after he complete defends himself from being considered a 'spammer', yet the people who go against him are.....

    Scott: "Well, these anti-spammers-"

    DailyShow: "Don't you mean anti-high-volume-email-deployment?"

    Scott: "What?!??....that just sounds stupid, they're anti-spammers"

  5. This really is no big deal by MrByte420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These arguments Richter is bringing up have had their showing in courts before. Richter complains that spam cop is interferring with his business. Spam Cop is doing no such thing. Spam Cop is not forced upon anyone. Spam Cop has given out their negative opinion about something and the target is just trying to shut them up.

    Suppose I create a website which rates hardware for PCs and I decide that such in such Video Card really fucking blows big chunks. This is akin to the manufacter trying to argue that I am interfering with his business because I'm telling everyone his product sucks - as long as I'm not being intentionaly libelous, I would think I'd be 1st amendment protected.

    Remeber that lawsuit last year from that copany that magiccaly sprung in Flordia just to flie a suit and disappear? That blew over - Spamhaus is still around and this will too.

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
  6. Re:As I said before he is still going to win by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As long as he is fully following the federal can spam act rules he is on strong legal grounds.

    To continue spamming, maybe. But how is he on strong legal grounds to force a company to stop classifying his email as "unwanted," when that is exactly what spamcop does. They take complaints, record them, munge them, and pass them on to service providers.

    CAN-SPAM says "you can spam, if you do it this way, and you won't be sued or thrown in jail." But it doesn't say other people can't filter you, file complaints against you to your ISP, etc.

    This is retarded.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  7. Read the Article by hburch · · Score: 5, Informative
    Heck, read the summary. The injuction and the suit involves sending e-mail to ISPs (presumably, OIRB's) and deleting e-mail addresses from complaints. This suit does not deal with listing OIRB as a domain that you may want to block.

    "We're not going after IronPort because of their blocking. We're going after IronPort for the harassment," [OIRB's Scott Richter] said. "We're going to go after many antispam groups."

    I think they are going after because of their blocking, but their suit does not complain about the blocking. They are going after anonymous e-mail complaints and sending e-mail to the ISP. Your argument does not address the issue at hand.

  8. Re:How's this happening, again? by ScouseMouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whether or not Spamming is legal is not actually the point. Any private individual has the right to hold opinions on the activities of another person or company.

    The scummers, erm, spammers, are using the argument that blocking these emails is costing them business.

    I would use the counter argument, that people (And this includes ISP's) choose *not* to recieve these emails because they are costing them time and money, and the spammers are not recompensing them.

    You may have the right to show me advertising, but you dont have the right to make me pay for you to do it. One of the reasons i dumped my old Dial up account is the minute or so wait while i downloaded scum.. erm.. spam... erm... marketing emails during which time the clock was ticking, but i coudnt use my internet connection.

    There are still quite a number of places in the world where people still pay for internet by the minute. (Not me any more fortunately)

    So, if any of your spammers are out there reading this message, Feel free to try to sue me for accusing you of the following: you are BOTTOM SUCKING LEECHES who survive by MAKING EVERYONES INTERNET CONNECTIONS THAT MORE UNPLEASANT TO USE. I not only hoping you loose the case against SPAMCOP, AOS, MICROSOFT et al, i hope they NAIL YOUR SCUMMY LITTLE COMPANIES TO THE WALL, and prove to everyone just what MORONIC IDIOTS you are in practicing this BARELY LEGAL "marketing" activity that would be BANNED IN VIRTUALLY ANY OTHER MEDIA.

    Hmm, theraputic, must do that more often :-)

  9. I reiterate by FU_Fish · · Score: 5, Funny

    I reiterate from the previous story. If OptInRealBig is a legitimate opt-in e-mail marketing service, then why don't they have a place anywhere on their website to opt-in?