Slashdot Mirror
$1 Billion Awarded in Lawsuit Against Spammers
phoric writes "In what is believed the be the largest federal judgement in history against spammers, an ISP from eastern Iowa was awarded a $1 billion dollar judgement against three mass-mailing companies, which were said to be sending up to 10 million e-mail messages per day to the small internet provider."
Will they share, after all I am a vicitm as well?
That's a lot of money per email. When I saw the headline, I figured most of the money came from putative damages, but the article didn't mention it. Instead they were able to claim the amount from actual damages. This leads me to think that this law might not stick around for a while. It was also interesting that no lawyers were present for the trial.
...the ISP was contacted about the money through an email with the subject "YOU HAVE JUST WON 1 BILLION DOLLARS!!!" which they obviously deleted, and now they can't receive their money.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Why not just work with credit card merchants. Many of these spams are for crap you can buy with a credit card.
...
So have police [or a taskforce] use specially marked cards [that otherwise appear like a credit card to the spammer]. Then when the merchant puts the transaction through their details are sent back to the task force.
e.g.
1. Get spam
2. Go there, buy shit
3. They try to collect with merchant
4. They then get a knock on the door a day later from the FBI or something.
Spammers already don't accept money orders and cheques [for obvious reasons] so let's make them afraid of credit cards as well.
And before anyone thinks this is entrapment step #1 takes care of that. They're selling to you without solicitation.
Aside from that I also really don't understand why spammers spam. I mean I don't know what a r0llex is, can't use any v1@gra and really can't afford a hom3 l0@n at the moment. So why bother emailing me over and over and over again.
I'm sure if I wanted herbal penis meds I'd already be in business transaction with the spammer anyways.
Oh well, can always just stop using email I guess.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that spamming is a first-amendment issue. It's not, and has never been a free-speech issue, it has always been a property rights issue. Spammers make their money by stealing service from millions of people.
Ralsky and the rest of his ilk are free to say whatever they want to say, but that does NOT include a right to use my computer/router/etc. to convey their message.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This argument reminds me of arguments like 'she asked for it' or 'well, you should have locked your doors'. Blaming the victim for not doing everything humanly possible to prevent the crime against them is one step away from anarchy. And make no mistake, this was a crime as defined by the law. The spammers thought that they had a small company that wouldn't and couldn't fight back. The spammers thought they would get away with it as they have always done. In this case the victim fought back. Shame on the spammers and hooray for the victim.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
The question is probably moot since the spammers vanished before the case started. (They didn't didn't even send lawyers to the court.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Whether they were personally served or not is a different question. However, personal service is not required. They can even be "served" with the summons and complaint by publication in a newspaper if diligent attempts at personal service have been made.
Lack of personal service may make it easier for them to set aside the default judgment, but I doubt they will show up in court to make the proper motions.
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
I followed the link and put in a fake name - a name I have never used anywhere else - but provided them with my real office phone number. Because it dealt with mortgages, I knew someone who had sufficient ties to my jurisdiction would respond if they wanted to sell me a mortgage.
I had over 40 fricking banks and mortgage brokers call me using that fake name! So what did I do? I sued the bastards.
Now, whether or not I believe them when they say that they didn't know that their leads were generated by spam, the judge in this particular case (who didn't know very much at all about the technology or economics of spam) said that, as a matter of law, they were not liable under my state's spam laws. However, before they were dismissed from the case, I was able, through discovery, to learn where they purchased those leads. So although I have dismissed the banks and brokers, I have named as defendants the companies who sold them the leads (which, I was surprised to learn, were also in my jurisdiction). My plan is to trace that fake name all the way back to the company that first sold it to somebody else.In seeing how much money these banks and brokers pay for leads, it is understandable why spammers take the risk of a judgment such as the one in this Iowa case - they are making money hand over fist!
No Inflation Taxation without Representation