Spammers Sue Spamee

sebFlyte writes "In an interesting take on the law, some (alleged) spammers are suing some poor chap who got them blocked by ISPs due to the fact they kept sending him spam. According to Spamhaus the company doing the suing is on their books as spammer, and also as a spyware company... If this case goes the wrong way, things could get very sticky for anyone wanting to report spam."

Comments

Can Spam Act as defense

[fembots]

This is a serious problem. Lawyers/spammers are now citing CSA, and as long as they're following that ACT, it will be legal.

However, it doesn't matter if spamming is legal or otherwise, this is just another example of rich people's law.

If this spammer is doing reasonably well, he might just have enough money to drag on. This will have a big impact on the victims, because even if you're rightfully entitled to complain about a spammer, you would now have a second thought if you have enough money to defend yourself for few months, even if the outcome is in your favour.

On a side note, the spamee, Jay Stuler is appealing for help from the public in fighting the suit and has set up a PayPal account to pay for his legal fees and is asking for donations. Maybe a bit of "email campaign" asking recipients to donate $5 and pass the email to 5 friends? :)

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "can" spam for a reason.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[tha_mink]

This is a serious problem. Lawyers/spammers are now citing CSA, and as long as they're following that ACT, it will be legal.

But really, all this guy did was complain to his ISP. You cannot get sued for complaining. If there is a lawsuit, it should be against the ISP for canceling the account. No? Seems like a million lawyers would jump at a countersuit on this one.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Senjutsu]

You cannot get sued for complaining.

As this case illustrates, you can be sued for anything. Sure, you probably won't lose, but can you afford to take the case far enough to be sure? Most people can't.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[kaustik]

I live in California, and see on a regular basis how true your comment really is...

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[KiltedKnight]

If you can't lose, you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit. If you have a reasonably wise and intelligent judge hearing the case, he'll look at it, agree, and throw it out. The judge would then warn the lawyer about bringing up frivolous lawsuits, potentially fining him for doing so.

Perhaps he should look for a way to counter-sue on those grounds. He followed the law, made a simple request based on the TOS of the ISP, and he's being harassed with a frivolous lawsuit intended to seek damages for something he is not liable for.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[bennomatic]

I think that statement is defamatory to California. I'll see you in court!

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[tool462]

Maybe a bit of "email campaign" asking recipients to donate $5 and pass the email to 5 friends? :)

Thanks for this. Somebody recently asked me for a good example of "irony," but I couldn't think of one at the time ;)

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Anonymous Coward]

I only wonder what my fate is. I typically call and pester a company if their products happen to arrive via spam email.

I've spoken to maybe 15 small businesses who's products show up in spam directed at me. Typically, I track down a real office number and make one phone call to speak to the company president. If future emails keep coming, I keep calling. People scream and moan, but I am "just responding to your ad" in the end. Make the emails stop and I'll stop calling to ask how that marketing firm is treating you.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[BitterOak]

Seems like a million lawyers would jump at a countersuit on this one.

Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous lawsuits, so there may be no basis for a countersuit, especially if the spam itself were not illegal. This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits. Sadly, his ideas have been largely forgotten.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Dashing Leech]

"you should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit"

The problem is that just to get to the point that you can ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed will probably cost you thousands of dollars. Just to sit down with a lawyer to look over the suit in the first case might cost you a few hundred. Even a few thousand dollars can break the bank for some people.

There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer. This is just taking schoolyard bullying to a higher level -- if you fight back it will only get worse for you even if you eventually win by getting the bully in trouble.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[dnoyeb]

Sometimes law schools provide this type of thing through the local state agencies. Students will review a case for free or a small fee at times.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[MightyMartian]

Most folks aren't lawyers, and most lawyers cost $$$. So there's going to be at least several hundred dollars spent getting a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. I don't know that much about legal matters, but isn't it true that if you want to recoupe legal fees, you're going to have to countersue?

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[HiredMan]

That statement falls under the "it's not defamatory if it's true" defense.

=tkk

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[TFGeditor]

"This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America in which there'd be a loser pays system for lawsuits."

Yea, amen, and halleluja. Remove the incentive for a big win even if they lose, and the "necessary evils" we call "lawyers" will spen more time golfing than harassing over baseless claims.

Even better, make lawyers who file claims determined frivilous subject to disbarment. To make it "fair," create civil grand juries to assess case merits before it ever sees a court room.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Ayaress]

Yes, but do you have enough money to prove that in court?

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Anonymous Coward]

> There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer.

In federal court you can move to dismiss before doing _anything_ in response to a complaint with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It's something you could even research on the internet and file yourself if you can't afford a lawyer. In addition, you can move for Rule 11 sanctions, which can be awarded when the complaint is frivolous, as it appears to be in this case. Rule 11 requires that any lawyer filing a complaint is thereby certifying that he has investigated the facts and believes that the complaint has a reasonable basis in fact. You won't be disbarred for filing a frivolous lawsuit, but you can be fined large amounts. Although his website pictures reveal that the case is in New Hampshire superior court, there is probably a similar system of civil procedure in New Hamsphire. Personally I found the spammer's complaint laughable. First of all, they spelled "Tortious" wrong in large bold type as "Tortuous." Second, truth is a defense to any claim of defamation. In any event he appears to be a graduate student at a college, so he is judgment-proof. The only reason they are filing the case is, as you said, taking bullying to a higher level. Although he should have thought twice about calling the spammers "criminals" or a criminal gang. This type of case seems to be open and shut-- not a lot of factual issues, only one defendant involved, etc. In other words, cheap. Moreover, this is a case the EFF should take. Personally I'll donate some cash to his defense fund just because.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[jim_v2000]

What are they going to sue one guy for? 100 bucks? Seriously, what do they expect to get out of this from him? Probably nothing. More likely they are trying to scare people into not complaining about spam. Bastards.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[suso]

Of course, corporations use this tactic all the time to control freedom of speech when someone says something about them. I mean, Look at what happened to Penny Arcade when they made an obvious parody on Strawberry Shortcake.

My brother was arrested once because someone accused him of something which he didn't do, he spent a year in jail waiting for his trial and then the plaintiff didn't even show up.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Big Jojo]

Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous [sic] lawsuits...

But many, including California, have laws against SLAPP lawsuits, and this would seem to fit firmly into that category. SLAPP == Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, as I recall. Where "public participation" has to do with maintaining the Commons, e.g. if Corporation X sues Joe Penguin for speaking up against it in a public forum, then Joe can relatively inexpensively file to have it dismissed as a SLAPP suit ... and Joe can collect triple damages if it's established that the suit was just to prevent Joe from opposing that toxic waste dump (or equivalent).

This is why we need tort reform like Newt Gingrich was touting in his contract with America...

Two things wrong there, and before you even finished the sentence!

1. We don't need "tort reform" in any sense that's been widely discussed. The abusers of the legal system are primarily corporations; look at the statistics. In this case, it's a corporation suing ... in other cases, it's often corporations selling faulty products since they know Deep Pockets Win, except in class action lawsuits which can tap many pocket. But all the "reforms" so far presented by Republicans (and corporate lawyers) are geared at removing what limited recourse individuals have against those corporations.
2. That should be Contract on America to be precise. Yes, the title has been widely misquoted forever, but if you look at the details you see what's up.

That article was rather devoid of essential facts; I'd really like to know if for example California's SLAPP statute could apply. (Many other states have them too.)

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[uberdave]

I think that both parties in a lawsuit should be required to pool their legal funds, and that should be split evenly between the two law teams doing the representing. That way, big bad rich guy could not bleed poor little guy into submission. Also, both parties would get equal legal representation.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Lost Race]

should move immediately for the case to be dismissed as a frivolous lawsuit.

He did. Motion denied.

Details on Jay's web site and Usenet discussions like this one

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Lost Race]

Maybe a bit of "email campaign" asking recipients to donate $5 and pass the email to 5 friends?

He's already being joe-jobbed by somebody spamming a corrupted version of his request for help all over Usenet. Most likely the aim is to make him look like bad, to generate confusion of who is really the spammer, but no doubt they'll eventually turn it into a scam with the wrong PayPal link.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[byron036]

Would never work. How do you determine how much money each party contributes? What if I want to have my attorney 'Larry'? Larry might be a high priced lawyer, but its my right to have the lawyer of my choice. So now the person suing me will say 'well then we want "Larry2.0"' an even higher priced attorney. So now I get to hire a second lawyer, but then they...

Its a vicious circle that doesn't survive a second examination of the circumstances. Our legal system is an adversarial system that relies on the Judge to be the impartial third party that prevents miscarriages of justice. It doesn't work either, but I wouldn't run off and replace it with something just as unlikely to succeed.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[ShamusYoung]

This is a saying we used to have at my company: "Anyone can sue you at anytime, for anything."

It is true, and while they may not even have a viable case against you, they can file motions and demand documents and force you into court to defend yourself. They bury you in legal paperwork and wait you out. The goal of such cases is not to win, but to get the other side to stop doing something they don't like. If the defendant can't afford the legal fees required to defend themselves, they have no choice but to give in and stop doing whatever it is that the other party doesn't like.

It is a very thugish abuse of the system, and AFAIK, there is no way to defend against it if you don't have the cash.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[sg_oneill]

Truth isnt always a defamation defence.

It just has to lead to 'unreasonable imputations' on your character.

Ie if I said "Hired man posts on slashdot", "Slashdot readers are known to steal company time surfing the site" "People who steal from companies are criminals" then I've said 3 things that are true.

But I've also probably defamed you (legally that is). Its all in the imputation.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Supertroll]

My brother was arrested once because someone accused him of something which he didn't do, he spent a year in jail waiting for his trial and then the plaintiff didn't even show up.

In a criminal case, the state is the plaintiff. Are you saying that the prosecutor didn't show show up on your brother's court date?

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[sg_oneill]

I used to work in a courtroom in australia. Generally if you represent yourself you are in big bloody trouble.

However what some judges would do, is ask witnesses(etc) questions on behalf of the person representing themselves to make up for that persons lack of representation. (Especially if the judge thought the person sueing/prosecuting was just beating on some poor guy)

More often then not the judges questions would tear huge stinky holes in the case. Dunno about te US, but over here the best lawyers are definately the judges.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[cerberusti]

He never said it was in the US. There are places this could happen.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Supertroll]

Judging from his website he's from Bloomington Indiana.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Bucket Truck]

All you need to make it fair is "loser pays". If the losing party of a lawsuit had to pay the legal bills of both parties then there would be no more frivolous lawsuits. No one would sue unless they were sure of their case...

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Steve Franklin]

He's a graduate student? Does his university know what he's up to? Is he perchance using the university's computers to spam?

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Current system:
- Evil rich spammer sues poor complainer.
- Defendant spends a few thousand on a lawyer, all they can afford.
- Defendant loses because evil rich spammer can afford better lawyers with more paralegals to research and argue the case.
- Defendant is out a few thousand plus penalties.

Loser pays:
- Evil rich spammer sues poor complainer.
- Defendant spends a few thousand on a lawyer, all they can afford.
- Defendant loses because evil rich spammer can afford better lawyers with more paralegals to research and argue the case.
- Defendant is out a few thousand, plus the penalties, plus the entire expense of the spammer's legal dream team.

How did the loser-pays system help the defendant again? In fact, this system would be encouraging the spammer, because they've shifted the expense of the legal "profit center" over to the defendant. In the current system, they at least have to pay some money up front. In the second, their profit margin has gone way up.

You're making the assumption that justice -- as seen by you -- will always prevail, and the losers always deserve whatever they get.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[TekPolitik]

There should be a system (perhaps there is, and someone can point me to it) whereby an individual can ask for a case to be reviewed before even talking to a lawyer.

The High Court of Australia (equivalent to the US Supreme Court) has just introduced something like this for appeals. When an appeal is filed with the High Court, they will now get just the appellant and their lawyers to put whatever arguments they have, and if the arguments have no chance of success whatsoever then they dismiss the appeal without even bothering the respondent with it.

With other courts, they usually have some procedures for dealing with vexatious litigants (litigants who have repeatedly brought actions without a basis in either law or fact). If a person is declared a vexatious litigant, they can't commence an action without the leave of the court, and in such circumstances the court will prevent the action from commencing at all if it's plainly bogus.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[alpha_foobar]

Down here in New Zealand we have mechanisms such as the citizen advice bureaux that can offer services to those in the community that can't afford to pay for advice.

I am sure similar facilities exist in most nations, even the USA.

All lawyers cost $$$ but some donate their free time to good causes... much like software developers I guess ;)

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[TekPolitik]

Truth isnt always a defamation defence.

It depends on where you are. Defamation law varies wildly around the world - that's one reason why in Dow Jones v Gutnick, Dow Jones wanted New York defamation law to apply, but Gutnick wanted Victorian defamation law to apply - the New York law is much better for them.

In some places, truth is an absolute defence to a defamation action. In other places, it's not a defence at all.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[lactose99]

Dunno about te US, but over here the best lawyers are definately the judges.

Its largely the same in the US, but with a slightly different take...

The best lawyers aren't.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[1u3hr]

only wonder what my fate is. I typically call and pester a company if their products happen to arrive via spam email.

Back in the distant past, when spam was a novelty, a local compnay kept spamming me (several copies at a time as my address was the default for unknown addresses at our domain). I called them up and got brushed off by a receptionist. So I called them up one more time for each spam I received, said why I was doing it, and hung up. Then they must have got my number from caller ID as I started to get fax machine calls on my phone. I called them up again and threatened to go to the police if they continued to harass me, they stopped the fax calls but spam continued.

All quite pointless, but illustrates the obliviousness of spammers to how their messages are received and the annoyance they cause.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Vectorferret]

Most frivolous lawsuits never reach court, they come to a settlement. (A good civil lawyer will never go to court if they can avoid it.) With that system, no one officially wins, and dropping it would end up wasteing even more of the courts time than is saved.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Nikker]

This doesn't make sence.

If you are a company emailing me about your product and I tell you to stop why would they not honor that if they were on 'the up and up'?

This guys too quick to ask for money for this as well, Slashdot alone could make him 10g's over night.

If I was a prospective donator I would tell him to take his cause to the EFF and donate there, they would be able to more effectively look at this problem and have more pull with the right people to maybe stop this from going to court.

I think this guys case is worthy I just have a feeling about it, FWIW

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Aruthra]

Won't work. At least, it would diminish the amount of valid lawsuits made by normal people against companies. What if I sue and loose on a technicality? I can't afford the chance.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[MightyMartian]

Well, this lawsuit seems aimed to start killing antispam measures at one of their sources, namely recipients complaining to their ISPs. I don't know the particulars of this, but I am net admin for a small ISP, and when we get a complaint about spam, whatever measures we end up taking, the one thing I would never do is reveal the name of the complainant.

I think it's pretty obvious that this is a nuisance suit, and certainly ISPs and other privately-owned networks have the right to stop any traffic they feel detrimental to their architecture or to their customers. I can't imagine anywhere but in bizarro world where this case has any merit. However, this guy is still going to have to spend a lot of money to defend himself. I am unaware of any kind of legal aid anywhere in North America for a civil lawsuit.

The sad part about this is that even if this fellow manages to get the cash to make these bastards back down, it's pretty clear that the spammers now are looking at offensive actions. I mean, what's the next step? ISPs have to indemify their customers? How soon before the company I work for is sued because we have SMTP proxies whose sole job is to weed out junk mail?

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Borderlinebass]

If a "loser pays" sysem is implemented, it's a disincentive against any individual who might sue a large corporation, a wealthy person (Such as a doctor.) or even the goverment.

What good is a system where someone who has been wronged and disadvantaged, who isn't gaurunteed to win, perhaps because the grounds the suit is based on is highly technical, like say medive, is chancing being injured further by seeking redress? That's a ridiculous tenent to base a justice system on, and it's why such ideas are routinely rejected, again and again.

As for the rest of it, yes, sanctioning lawyers that repeatedly bring frivilous lawsuits would be a good thing. But that already occurs.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[miu]

Tort reform is still around as an idea, but has been hijacked (like much of the conservative agenda) by the neo-cons and made part of their anti-human, pro-giant-business ideology.

Genuine efforts for tort reform want to not only remove the incentive for frivolous lawsuits by raising the standards for punitive damages, but make sure that private individuals have the same clout as a entity with deep pockets when negotiating fees.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

I can go you one better...

One drunken evening a year or so ago I absolutely lost my cool when I came home to a deluge of spam that was bigger than I had ever seen. After dutifully reporting each and every one of them to Spamcop I stumbled across one particular email that was sent by/for a business that was stupid enough to use their 800# in the body of the mail. My evil mind went to work, and after a few minutes of scripting in my head the following conversation (as far as I can remember it) ensued.

[ring ring]

Thank you for calling XXX, my name is Kathy, how can I help you? Me: (using the biggest, dumbest, drive-time DJ voice I can muster): KATHY! HOW ARE YOU?! You're lucky listener number 20 tonight! Are you feeling lucky? Are you?

K: Wha...? Who is th- DJ: Kathy! You listen to Brian and Bob in the mornings on Z-101, right? K: Umm... yeah! (Who's gonna get a call like that and say no, hm?) DJ: So here's the story Kathy - we got your name from some of your co-workers and entered it into our big contest drawing this month, and...

(uncomfortably long pause...)

K: And wha-? DJ: AND YOUR NAME CAME UP IN OUR 80'S ROCK TRIVIA CHALLENGE, KATHY! ARE YOU EXCITED?! K: Oh yeah, what are we-? DJ: Kathy? K: Yeah?

DJ: ARE YOU READY TO WIN $50,000 DOLLARS?!

(pause)

K: ARE YOU SERIOU-? DJ: We're ABSOLUTELY serious, Kathy! You are exactly ONE question away from winning FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS!

(at this point, I knew I had her. I could hear her cup the phone with her hand and start yelling at what had to be an entire office full of people.)

DJ: Kathy? Are you ready? Get the men and women at work with you to help out!

K: Sure!

(she was hyperventilating at this point)

DJ: Kathy, here's what we want to know...

(another uncomfortable pause)

DJ: For fifty thousand dollars...

(yet another pause, during which I heard the sound of ten different computers firing up Google in anticipation...)

DJ: What one-hit-wonder from the mid-80's was notable for their lead singer's visible physical deformity?!

(sheer, dead silence for a moment that lasted forever)

K: What WHAT?

DJ: TEN SECONDS!!

(at this point, she freaked. she tried to cover the phone and missed, and as I loudly counted down from ten to one I heard an entire office simultaneously melt down. "One-hit WHAT?! DEFORMITY? WHAT THE...!?"

DJ: THREE! TWO!

K: OH MY G-!

DJ: ONE! OH, NO! You JUST missed it, Kathy! Fifty thousand dollars, and you JUST didn't get it. It's too bad, too - I gave you SUCH a hint!

K: You WHAT? Hint? WHAT TH-?

DJ: Oh, Kathy - I practically gave it to you. I told you to get some help from the women... and MEN AT WORK! It was Men at Work, and you must be feeling really stupid right now not remembering Colin Hay and that freaky wandering eyeball he has! Remember that eye? Of course you do! You must be feeling so stupid right now!

(at this point my roommate, who's been watching the entire affair in bugeyed amazement, chimes in with "So FUCKING stupid!!" loud enough for her to hear it. I nearly had an aneurysm...)

DJ: Yeah, that was Bob... he calls 'em like he sees 'em. How you feeling, Kathy?

(it's at this point that I'm pretty sure I earned myself a warm spot in Hell, because she sounded like she was about to be sick...)

K: Oh God, I was so c...

(and if I wasn't going to Hell yet...)

DJ: But don't forget, Kathy - there's only one other person on our mega prize list today, and if they miss the Trivia Challenge question too, the money is YOURS!!

K: Are you SERIOUS?!

DJ: I'm DEAD serious, Kathy! Before the day is out you just might have that money! But remember, you have to get to the phone within two rings - so stay close to the phone and answer with our slogan! "Brian and Bob rock me HARD!" Can you do it now?

K: Bri... um, Brian and Bob rock me HARD!!

DJ: Excellent, Kathy! So remember, a

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[killjoe]

Nah, tort reform is to prevent the little guys from suing big corporations. It's not about anything else. It certainly won't stop big companies from suing little guys like this case is.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Tony Hoyle]

If a "loser pays" sysem is implemented, it's a disincentive against any individual who might sue a large corporation, a wealthy person (Such as a doctor.) or even the goverment.

This is a *good* thing.

If you're going to sue someone you'd better be damned sure of your case before starting. No more suing McDonalds because your tea is hot.

OTOH If you have a good case you'll get a good lawyer (because the big corp. will end up paying) and get justice.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[k98sven]

First: a loser-pays system does not in itself bar settlements.
(Although, yes, it does discourage settling on the grounds that it'd be more expensive to go to court and have the case thrown out)

Second: That comparison is given that the a frivolous case already has been brought. The entire idea here is that there would no longer be any point in bringing a frivolous suit, since you're not going to win and you're not going to get a settlement because it's cheaper that way.

Also, you're ignoring the fact that settling a frivolous case because it's cheaper than going to court is an injustice. And IMHO serving justice by discouraging unfair settlements is a heck of a lot more important than saving the courts' time.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[k98sven]

What if I sue and loose on a technicality? I can't afford the chance.

You don't need to have an all-encompassing 'loser-pays' system. For instance, in Australia it defaults to 'loser-pays' but is ultimately at the discretion of the court.

And this is used in a way which exactly adresses what you brought up: If your case had good merit, but failed in some small respect, then the court would likely have you only pay your own fees.

Whereas if someone brought an obviously frivolous case, it would be very unlikely for the court to exersize its discretion.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[msim]

read the Writ of summons. Basically the guy is being sued because he a) called the guy a criminal, b) called his company a gang of spamming criminals c) co-erced (sp?) the companies ISP to can his connection knowing full well that requiring an internet connection was vital to the companies existence.

Now i know he spoke to the ISP reporting the problem, he would probably be pissed about the spam and complained vigerously and the co-ercing the isp to terminate the account thing would possibly be dismissed, but theres a totally different kettle of fish being involved if the namecalling turns out to be true...

Good luck to the guy, i wish he had kept a lid on his temper more, it might have made this thing rollin his favour a little more.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[McWilde]

There was an IQ test on television last night here in Holland. I thought that was pretty ironic.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[msim]

Hehehe i love it :-).

I admit i was hoping for something more uhm, vindictive and immediately cruiel. But thinking about it, i like that trick, very nasty ;-).

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[GORby_]

All you need to make it fair is "loser pays"

Sure... that way you're certain that big companies can impossibly screw you over (i.e. being a small developer), because when they threathen with a lawsuit, you can say: "go on, sue me... when I lose (even though I have a 99,9% chance of winning) I can easily pay the legal bills.

Or the other way around... Some big company (let's call them MicroSoft for the folks around here) does something wrong (not terribly wrong, but in the gray area of legality). If you sue them, you've got a fairly big chance of losing, especially since they have the cash to keep the trial going as far as the law allows or until they win. So, what do you do... you don't sue, and by doing so, the big money company's practices become accepted, because noone dares to sue...

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[mwvdlee]

I'm just surprised the ISP isn't funding their spamee's laywers. This would be a very easy, safe and relatively cheap opportunity to create some good publicity.

Whether Jay is going to lose or win this case; it'll cost him money so unless something is set right, he'll be losing either way which is just plain wrong morally speaking.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[DrSkwid]

Fight for something better: www.socialistalternative.org

Socialism doesn't start with concentration camps, that's where it ends.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[eric76]

The Can-Spam Act includes a clause that states that even if the spam is legal, the act does not confer any greater right to file suit against ISPs over blocking of the spam than they already had.

Check out Section 8(c):

(c) NO EFFECT ON POLICIES OF PROVIDERS OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on the lawfulness or unlawfulness, under any other provision of law, of the adoption, implementation, or enforcement by a provider of Internet access service of a policy of declining to transmit, route, relay, handle, or store certain types of electronic mail messages.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[martin-boundary]

No, it's a more subtle idea. Each side can spend as much money as they want to get their own lawyers, except that for every penny they spend on themselves, half is given to their opponents.

So for example Big Corp normally spends 2 million on their own lawyers, and little guy spends $1000 on his. With this system, the lawyers aren't allowed to be paid directly, instead an escrow company gets $2001000 and gives Big Corp a credit of $1000500, and gives little guy a credit of $1000500. These funds can be spent on trial expenses, and anything unclaimed goes to the court or a charity.

With that system, Big Corp doesn't want to spend a lot more than little guy, because they're funding their opponents. So it tends to stabilise where both sides pay the same amount. Moreover, if nobody wants to pay anything at all, then the suit is dismissed.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[eric76]

That's very good.

The funniest thing that anyone did to a spammer was a woman who checked out the registration records on a spam domain and found that they had used a free e-mail address from yahoo, hotmail, or someone similar.

When she sent a test e-mail to it, it came back as undeliverable because there was no such address.

So she obtained the address and then used it to change the DNS servers for the domain to her own.

She set up an e-mail account to match the one in the spam and sent back a canned reply to everyone who expressed interest in the spamvertized product that they were really stupid to fall for such things. If I remember correctly, she also set up a web page for the domain to tell the interested buyers how stupid they were.

The first-time spammers were, I think, from South America and were extremely upset to lose their domain and all the potential sales from the spam. But all their complaints did nothing to get their domain back again.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Niggle]

I think you're ignoring the fact that the legal teams (on both sides) in the second case will expect to be paid by the loser. If the defendant has a good chance of winning, then they should be able to retain a good legal team because that team can expect to be paid (eventually) out of evil rich spammer's deep pockets rather than the poor complainers.

Given that the defendant can probably find a good (ie expensive) legal team, and that the spammer will end up paying for them, the spammer's legal team would probably advise him not to bother sueing unless they thought they had a good chance of winning. Note that they can now expect to be going up against a good legal team rather than whatever cheap team the defendant could have got in the first scenario so their chances of winning should be reduced anyway.

OTOH, the current system encourages people to sue anybody significantly poorer than themselves simply because they can't fight back.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[FireFury03]

Problem is, many states don't have laws against frivilous lawsuits, so there may be no basis for a countersuit, especially if the spam itself were not illegal.

When you sign up to an ISP you agree to their AUP. If you've broken the AUP then they have every right to kick you out. I cannot see how you can seriously sue someone for informing the ISP that one of their customers was breaking the AUP. (Infact, I'm sure most AUPs give the ISP the right to terminate your service at their discretion).

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[miu]

Simple "loser pays" as a solution would be worse than the current system. Proper tort reform has two part - reduce the incentive for frivolous lawsuits on the part of individuals by raising the standard for punitive damages, and reduce the incentive for lawyers to encourage frivolous lawsuits by standardizing fee schedules.

That would give an individual the same ability to get good legal representation as a corporation - and retain "loser pays" for punitive damages in a counter-suit if the case is frivolous.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[farnz]

Go look at a real loser pays system (as in, one that's already running in somewhere like Australia or the UK). Our rules are simple: usually, the loser pays costs for all; if the judge feels that's unjust for whatever reason, they can award costs differently. A costs order can be appealed, just like any other judge's order, so judges can't go overboard.

And I don't see how a "pay your own costs" or "winner pays" system helps in either of the two cases you mention; a big company can screw you over by threatening you with a lawsuit, then just dragging it out (SCO vs IBM style) until you run out of money. Likewise, a company that's gone into the gray area of law can afford to just drag a case out until you can no longer pay your costs. Again, no worse than your worst case scenario under loser pays.

The big difference that loser pays makes is in providing access for poor people with a strong case; a lawyer will take it on, but will not demand payment until completion of the case. Thus, when you take on a big, rich company, and you have a strong case, you can afford lots of legal costs because the lawyers will leave taking payment until the costs order comes round; they can claim interest on their costs at that point, too.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Lonewolf666]

Frankly, bloated as the legal system is, having the rules laid out is a damn sight better than anarchy. Imagine if spammers could use the same techniques as organized crime: this guy would have fewer functioning limbs by now if it weren't for the legal system. Think about it.
Interesting line of thought. Right now, this guy is collecting money for a legal defense. Without a legal system, that money might be spent to hire an assassin for the spammer's CEO...

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[MikeDX]

Yes, I do.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[lifer_red]

"Dunno about te US, but over here the best lawyers are definately the judges."

In the UK at least, this is definitely true, seeing as how the judges *are* the best lawyers; it's where you get promoted to if you're good.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Master Ben]

A court order would be required to force the ISP to give up the name. Chances are there wasn't one, so if the isp did there could be a lawsuit of complainant vs ISP.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Dasch]

Don't you have a system that helps people unable to pay for their legal defense in the US? Boy, your legal system really *does* suck...

(i can't believe you trust that system enough to allow capital punishment)

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[CmdrGravy]

I think a "loser pays" system can be lot fairer with the caveat that it also allows the judge to decide who pays what if he thinks it's appropriate.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[JohnFluxx]

So in this case the spamee doesn't dare go to court at all because in the slim case he loses he's going to have a huge debt.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Oddly_Drac]

"But really, all this guy did was complain to his ISP."

Actually he defamed the other party, which is two counts of the lawsuit. The interference with contract was the ISP, but that's covered under their ToS, which it should be fairly simple to produce as evidence. The defamation counts are the real doozy, though, and are why you never get personal in complaints. Admittedly I did report a portscan from home.nl using the words 'They need to learn some networking', but it was absolutely true.

The spammers are learning the loopholes behind the weak-ass legislation, but the most important one is getting the other side to _prove_ opt-in without a shadow of a doubt. Getting their email list through discovery might be handy, though.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Dogtanian]

Socialism doesn't start with concentration camps, that's where it ends.

Trite.

You're implying that because the Nazis called themselves "National Socialist" that they actually were socialist?

Well, okay. And the People's Democratic Republic of China is 'democratic' (for the same reason), so living in a democracy implies living under an oppressive regime where those opposed to the government are killed or tortured.

And (with reference to the other reply) yes, it's funny how no-one ever uses Sweden as an example of socialism, despite the fact that what they had there was closer to true socialism than anything the USSR, Nazis or North Korea came up with.

On the other hand, I wouldn't expect any better from someone who has a link to another PETA propoganda site in their sig.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[crawling_chaos]

All you need to make it fair is "loser pays"

Nope. Here's a counter-example:

Let's say that SuperMegaMart wants to open a store on protected land. Joe Littleguy gets out and starts complaining about them. SMM sues JL for libel, knowing full well that they will spend $10M including JL's costs when they lose. In the meantime they spend $1M to get a gag order on JL and manage to go ahead and build their store. They already budgeted that $10M as "expected legal costs" for opening the store. They even get to write down those costs against their taxes!

As long as the big guy's resources far exceed those of the little guy, this kind of strategy works. It even deters little guys from suing in the first place, because what happens if they do screw up a little and lose? All fo the sudden they're liable for millions in legal fees and judgements.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[TFGeditor]

"...lawers generally don't hover around trying to convince clients to engage in (potentially expensive) legal action."

Either you do not live in the U.S. or do not watch broadcast television, else you would be familiar with the pond scum that solicits clients for every trivial wrong you can think of, promosing big money for them.

We need tort reform and vastly improved barritry laws.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[DrSkwid]

You're implying that because the Nazis called themselves "National Socialist" that they actually were socialist?

No I'm not

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[rs79]

Simple "loser pays" as a solution would be worse than the current system.

An interesting opinion, but does not mesh well with reality. This rule is in effect here in Canada and works well. We don't have the stupid lawsuits you yanks have.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[miu]

It wouldn't work in the US - the threat of massive debt incurred would not deter lawsuit speculation on the part of potential plaintiffs with nothing to lose. That is why you have to not only get rid of the "lottery" system for payoffs, but make quality legal aid available to all parties - the key to both of those aims is standardization of damages and legal fees. Recovery of legal fees should be possible, but as an absolute requirement all it does it keep people with a valid complaint from suing.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Borg_5x8]

The trouble is, big & rich is not inherantly evil... by pooling resources, if enough crooked people wanted a company taken down, they could all start separate cases on separate issues, and suck the company dry; terminal for any company smaller than of multinational-proportions, and even then, with enough people...

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[gamma male]

Yeah, loser pays and suddenly every little guy has even less incentive to sue when wronged by someone who's rich. If the wronger is able to mount a multi million dollar defence and is found innocent for some reason, the little guy now owes those million dollars in addition to the few thousand he already spent.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[ciscoguy01]

The defendant is a graduate student. Not the spammer.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[ciscoguy01]

>Although he should have thought twice about calling the spammers "criminals" or a criminal gang.
Exactly.
Clearly you can call up a spammer's ISP and say "make your sleazy customer stop spamming me".
It would likely be quite difficult to sue you over such a request.
If however you allege things about the spammer that might open you up to liability.
So keep complaining about spam, but watch what you say, especially in writing.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[ciscoguy01]

Just to shut him up. That's all.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[ciscoguy01]

The important issue here is the defendant doesn't live in New Hampshire, where the plaintiff is. The plaintiff sued the defendant in a state the defendant has no ties whatsoever to.

I think plaintiffs have to file their lawsuits against you where the defendant is, or where the tort took place. And I doubt where the complaining email was received would make a difference. At least I hope not. What if the ISP were a national in Florida?
That is what they tried to get dismissed and failed.

AFAIK the defendent did engage an attorney in New Hampshire and did respond to the lawsuit.
Perhaps he created the right to sue him in New Hampshire when he hired an attorney there?

IANAL, but I thought what you would do in a case like this is let them do the case, get a default judgment, and get it vacated with a simple form since you have no ties whatsoever to the jurisdiction.

It might be messy but I don't think you are required to respond to a case that is not filed against you where YOU ARE. I doubt attorneys like this strategy, most of the ones I have known were eager to litigate the merits of the case at your expense.

Perhaps some of the attorneys reading would like to comment on this.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[eugene ts wong]

That's awesome. You deserve every positive moderation.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[byron036]

So then Big Corp hires 'Larry2.0' to sweep floors for a year (or rewrite the EULA on their new products) at $1999000/yr. Then, just since he is in the building, they pay him $1000 to handle this little court matter they have.

This scheme smacks of communism, which in is the best form of government, on paper. Reality means that 'fair' is always more fair for the many|rich|powerful. Nothing proposed so far leads me to believe that we won't be in the same boat with this proposal. You can't keep this sort of system fair.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Chandon Seldon]

That actually makes the bully technique easier for a big enough attacker.

Remember that you do need to successfully defend yourself to win, reguarless of the facts of the case.

So, with looser pays, the statement becomes "You will settle, or you'll get to pay our legal fees. For this case we've retained the entire state of Deleware as legal aid. Due to our high cost in litigating this case, the settlement will be your house, car, and left kidney."

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[iamacat]

if you fight back it will only get worse for you even if you eventually win by getting the bully in trouble.

From my experience the opposite is true - if you fight back at all, you are less likely to be bothered in future even if you lose. Even your feeble blows caused some amount of pain and if you show you are willing in principal to seriously hurt him, well you might just get lucky next time.

In the other words, collect donations, then countersue and suck them dry. Next time, spammers will not dare to sue you or anyone else.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[pellis23]

That won't work. The big, deep-pocketed company would still sue the little guy. The little guy still can't afford to run up huge legal bills on the off chance that he does lose, for some reason. Nevermind that malicious parties that have a case could use legal bills in a punative manner by inflating the bill (artificially or otherwise) as a means of forcing a settlement or causing increased financial burden above and beyond any court-granted awards.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Dashing Leech]

Excellent. I was hoping someone with more knowledge than me about the particulars of the U.S. judicial system would find that there is such as system in place (or close to). I hope these things exist in all juristictions.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Dashing Leech]

"...then they should be able to retain a good legal team because that team can expect to be paid (eventually) out of evil rich spammer's deep pockets rather than the poor complainers."

I think this already exists on the other side of the coin. Some legal teams will take cases (on the plaintiff side), such as class actions, with no direct cost to the plaintiffs on the basis that they take a certain percentage of the winnings or a flat fee from it. Essentially, the lawyers are gambling that the case is good enough that they can win and win enough to cover their expenses and a tidy profit. This approach allows the "little guy" or groups to sue big companies who are screwing them.

Your proposal would bring this option to the defendant side. Lawyers could gamble (after reviewing the merits of the defense) that they can win the case and get paid by the plaintiff. Not a bad idea, but there's a few flaws:

Fees would have to set before trial, and perhaps even hours. Otherwise the lawyers could claim $10,000/hour and work very inefficiently (100 hours per week but only get about 40 hours of productive work done).

The lawyers will only get their claimed fee. In the current case where they're on the plaintiff side they gamble on huge winnings which is like a jackpot for them, far and above their normal hourly rate (which can pay for the cases they lose plus their fancy sports cars).

The plaintiff can just drop the case part way through, and they'd never get paid. When they gamble on the plaintiff side they have lots of control over the status of the case: pressing ahead if they think they can win, dropping it if it turns sour and cutting their losses, or proposing or accepting a deal with the defendant. On the defendant side, they can't stop the plaintiff from dropping the case after they put in hundreds or thousands of hours of work.

Who pays for the plaintiffs lawyers if the defendant loses? The defending lawyer who took on the case as a gamble (losing both their salary and paying the plaintiff lawyers) or the defendants themselves, who can't afford it. Gambling on a plaintiff case the lawyers only risk their own salary and expenses.

Related to above, there's no guarantee that the defendant can find such a lawyer, so they might get stuck with Joe Schmoe. Why would a Joe Schmoe lawyer take such a case? His chance of winning are small so he'd only get what the defendent can pay, which is nothing if the defendant also has to pay the expensive plaintiff lawyers. Basically, if a defendant can't find a high priced lawyer willing to gamble, he might as well not defend himself at all since he won't find any lawyer.

Good idea, but needs some tweaking.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[martin-boundary]

Larry2.0 can be paid to sweep floors, it doesn't matter. Any work he does on a case has to be accounted for and paid for by the escrow. He can't work "unofficially" on the case - that would be illegal and if he was caught he'd be fined - since he has to disclose his income to the IRS anyway, it would be obvious.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[Thuktun]

If you're going to sue someone you'd better be damned sure of your case before starting. No more suing McDonalds because your tea is hot.

One would think that someone with third-degree burns over 6% of one's body necessitating skin grafts, due to a cup of hot coffee, and a ten-year history of such burns and other evidence of negligence, would have been pretty sure of her case.

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[tha_mink]

Clearly you can call up a spammer's ISP and say "make your sleazy customer stop spamming me". It would likely be quite difficult to sue you over such a request. If however you allege things about the spammer that might open you up to liability. So keep complaining about spam, but watch what you say, especially in writing.

Unless, of course you have real proof of criminal activitiy. ex. Subject lines of emails

Re:Can Spam Act as defense

[sg_oneill]

This is true. Victoria &NSW (australian states) have some lousy defamation laws.

Actually all of australia does. High time for free speech to move from common law to constitution imho.

The Spammer Strikes Back

[IO ERROR]

SPAM
WARS

Episode V

The Spammer Strikes Back

It is a dark time for the Internet. Although Spamford Wallace has been shut down, Atriks spammers have driven the irate users from their inboxes and pursued them into court.

Evading the dreaded Distributed Mail Corporation, a group of freedom fighters led by Jay Stuler has established a new secret base on the remote ice world of Ohio.

The evil lord Darth Haberstroh, obsessed with harassing young Stuler, has dispatched thousands of spambots into the far reaches of the Internet...

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spammer Strikes Back

I like "The Spampire Strikes Back". It has spam, empire, and the bonus of vampire (basically what the spammers are anyway) all rolled into one.

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[rbarreira]

If there was a +10, Funny, this would be it :D

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[josh3736]

They're in the remote ice world of Ohio?

What's the address, I might have to give them a visit with my, erm, "light sabers" (known to some as matches).

I'll take donations for gas money. PayPal accepted.

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[Lillesvin]

"Not 'gay' Jon, 'aristocratic.'" [tinyurl.com]

Buffering...
No-
Buffering...
-ot 'g-
Buffering...
-ay'
Buffering...
Joh-
Buffering...
-n,
Buffering...
'ari-
Buffering...
-stocr-
Buffering...
-rati-
Buffering...
-ic'
Buffering...
.

Offtopic? No-no-no-no-noo! It's dead on! ;-p

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[Mudcathi]

I get dizzy just saying this synopsis:

Can Spam Can't Stop Spam, and
Spammee Can't Stop Spam, but
Spammer Can Stop Spamee?

ps I thought "spamee" was the descriptive term for the amorphous oozing mess left after stomping a spammer - sort of a spammer puree, which is a much more pleasing thought than me trying to make anything rhyme ever again

Re:The Spammer Strikes Back

[pbf]

Interesting enough, it seems that virtualmda is just making an official version of the common new generation of virus remailers. From the previous post it seems that the only purpose of such a thing is to send spam.

Now here is an idea: if all slashdot users with a windows machine (could wine work ?) should register with the service and then promptly block outgoing connections to port 25 from that machine (we all have firewalls don't we ?).

This scheme would have a few advantages:
- less span is sent (good)
- may make money in the process (doubtful)
- create a mess for the spammer and kill this dubious scheme

If spammers were smart

[Anonymous Coward]

(Yeah, I know, and if horses had wings...) They'd actually listen to people who want to "unsubscribe" from their lists and remove them. Why? Because if any spam makes it to me, through filters, then it gets reported to Spamcop, and they get to spam less. If they don't want to be reported, don't send me spam.

Re:If spammers were smart

[TheGavster]

The reason that people spam is that they do not understand that not all recipients are potential customers. Thinking that they would actually remove people from lists who ask to be removed is just asking too much ...

Only in America

[soda160289]

Only in America!

Re:Only in America

[ungulation]

No, soviet russia

Does this case hold?

[oskard]

If anything, they should sue the ISP, not the individual. Props to the ISP though for listening to the guy.

Re:Does this case hold?

[kmb]

As a co-worker of mine pointed out, the ISPs are probably safe because there was probably something in the user agreement about, well, not allowing bulk commercial mailings from their accounts.

...wait...what?!

[Dixie Flatliner]

Damn, I better take that No Junk Mail sticker off my mailbox. I hear the Post Office has some mean ass lawyers.

Re:...wait...what?!

[fembots]

This is different, the spammers are not suing spamme for blocking emails, but for complaining and possibly defaming them.

You might actually get sued by the Post Office if you go about talking shits about them.

And in this case, it's been brought to the court to see if the shit is indeed shit.

Re:...wait...what?!

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

I understand the context, but my father works for the post office - the bulk mailing department. It was established because advertising agencies realized that the cheapest way to get attention was to send 5 cent letters to millions. The post office is required by law to maintain the capacity to deliver within a specified period. And because Junk mail was protected by law - the system had to get bigger. And as a direct result, there is no cheaper, faster way to send cookies at christmas.

Re:...wait...what?!

[TheGavster]

The system *could* correct itself by having the postal charges differ for subscribed and unsubscribed mail. If you sent a million letters, you get a discount no matter what the letters contain. If it was made to cost $5/letter instead of $0.05/letter for unsolicited mail sent by the million, then people wouldn't do it, and the extra capacity could go to single-piece batches, like your cookies.

Re:...wait...what?!

[BrokenHalo]

Here in Australia, it used to be possible to purchase "No Junk Mail", or rather, "Australia Post Only" stickers at the post office.

Seems this is no longer possible. When I asked the guy behind the counter if the reason for that was because Australia Post is largely responsible for delivering junk mail these days, he said "I wouldn't deny it, Sir".

Re:...wait...what?!

[MechaStreisand]

Uhhh... What? You want postal prices for sending cookies to increase? Don't you realize that the only reason it's so cheap and fast now is because of junk mail?

By the way, don't take this as me supporting spam. I think all spammers should be killed, but there's nothing wrong with physical junk mail subsidizing regular mail. All US Postal customers benefit from it in that way.

Re:...wait...what?!

[crazyprogrammer]

I work for the postal service as a mail carrier and have seen plenty of stickers like this before. If the mail has your name on it or the words "current resident/occupant" then it get's delivered to your box. Having such a sticker on your box wont grab the attention of lawyers, they're too busy prosecuting people accused of mail fraud and theft.

You can refuse 1st class mail and it will be returned to sender.

You're not supposed to refuse anything that says current resident, but a lot of people do. It's pretty sad when I have to explain to someone that "current resident" means anyone who lives at this house.

Getting back on topic, you wont be sued for refusing "junk mail" that says current resident on it. Depending on the carrier, he/she might just keep putting it back in your box till you throw it in the trash.

Re:...wait...what?!

[jrockway]

Every postal worker i've ever met is STUPID. The postal service sucks. FedEx breaks many fewer packages than the good ol USPS.

Did I mention that the USPS sucks? 'cause they do. Really. Hard.

(Oh no, I just "talked shits" about them... arrest me!!!!)

Re:...wait...what?!

[rs79]

What kind of cookies?

The last time I went to the (local, Canadian) post office there's a new notice there. "persuant to the bioterrorism act it is no longer legal to send food to the United States. Home made goods are excepted".

I am not making this up. Send a pack of gum and you're busted. Send a dozen homemade chocolate chip anthrax cookies and you're ok.

Re:...wait...what?!

[Knetzar]

I need to try one of those stickers. Writing "Return to Sender" on my junk mail has gotten my mail man upset at me.

Just Remember..

[XjinxX]

it's not over until the government makes you buy the viagra!

Re:Just Remember..

[woah]

it's not over until the government makes you buy the viagra!

... it's not over even then.

Somebody do something!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hack these guys, bomb them or something. Of course, AFTER legal battles are found to be futile.

If the law turns against the people... then it's time for people to turn against the law.

Lets hope we get a real judge

[Turn-X Alphonse]

If we get a judge with a clue we can all wait 6 months for the dupe, then another 6 and we can all post "HAHAHAHAHA PWNED!"

But if we get some idiot judge who's magically got some extra money and an errectional problem... well I suspect I may have to change my Gmail account incase I get sued for reporting a scam..

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[JPriest]

Even a "good judge" is still required to operate within the law. These spammers were probably within their rights according to CAN SPAM. And by extention, their right to send spam has been infringed on.

We all know "spammers are bad" but the law does not see it the same way. The law is flawed, so the ruling will probably be flawed. Placing the blame on the judge is shooting the messenger.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[Phexro]

Hopefully, this guy won't get the case.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[Lehk228]

And by extention, their right to send spam has been infringed on.

They have the right to send spam, and I have the right to complain to their ISP over it, just because something is legal doesn't mean you can't get banned for it, there is nothing illegal about trolling but many sites will ban you on the spot for it, and justifiably so.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[timeOday]

There's no law that ISPs must offer services to spammers. Uploading linux iso's 24/7 is legal too, that doesn't mean my ISP has to let me do it on their network.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[Turn-X Alphonse]

A good judge will see how STUPID this is, it maybe "within the law" but at the same time it's "within the law" to complain and not get 12 lawyers knocking at your door.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[shawb]

From TFA:

Anti-spam foundation SpamHaus has listed Atriks on its register of known spam operations (ROKSO), which states the company has violated the act by using misleading subject lines.

SpamHaus also says it has had complaints that software is being installed by Atriks on users' computers without their permission - which is a felony.

These spammers were not within their rights according to CAN SPAM. That aside, I hope that some legitimate bulk email house (If such a thing exists) never gets the opportunity to try something like this in court.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[aardvarkjoe]

their right to send spam has been infringed on.

CAN SPAM does not make it illegal for an ISP to block spammers, even if the spam complies with the act. Although the article doesn't give any real details, it's likely that the company was violating the ISP's terms of use. Nobody's "infringing on their rights" here.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[gonk]

"their right to send spam has been infringed on"

For the sake of argument, lets say that what you really mean is their right to free speech, because there is no right to send spam. You're still wrong.

The right to free speech does not mean that anyone has to listen to you or that you have the right to make them. You can't go on TV whenever you like, you can make the papers print whatever you like, you can't force someone to provide you network services you're planning to for something they consider unacceptable, and you can't force anyone to transport, accept or read email that you've sent.

Free speech does not imply "consequence free" speech. You can call your boss an asshole all day long, but that doesn't mean your rights have been violated when you get fired.

robert

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[keraneuology]

These spammers were probably within their rights according to CAN SPAM. And by extention, their right to send spam has been infringed on.

But you are missing the point.

CAN SPAM is a legal construct. An ISP's AUP is a civil/contractural construct. There is no law that prohibits you from wearing blue jeans but if you sign a contract promising that you will not wear blue jeans you are held to that standard. If an ISP says you may not send bulk email and you agree to that restriction then you may not send bulk email. If an ISP says that you may not resell services to a company that sends bulk email and you agree to that restriction then you may not resell services to a company that sends bulk email. If an ISP says you may not visit /. and you agree to that restriction then you may not visit /. In all instances you are free to find an ISP with AUP terms that you find acceptable.

Please point out where CAN SPAM becomes relevant.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[maxpublic]

The spammer violated the contractual agreement he had with the ISP. CANSPAM doesn't trump this. He's clearly in the wrong and just fucking over the guy who got his account yanked.

The spammer doesn't have the 'right' to send spam. The only 'rights' he has are those included in his contract with the ISP.

Max

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[JPriest]

Point taken, but there is a line between where they are justified in "banning me for trolling" and where the are stepping on my right of free speech.

Re:Lets hope we get a real judge

[geminidomino]

Point taken, but there is a line between where they are justified in "banning me for trolling" and where the are stepping on my right of free speech

And a very broad line it is. See, if you were banned for trolling, it would be /. doing the banning, not the government, so it's not a free speech issue. Its the "my server, my rules" concept.

Expanding on that concept, I'm now going to see if there's an atriks file at blackholes.us.

tthis is convoluted

[Wansu]

No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems ... My dad asked me, "What damn good is it?" I see his point.

Re:tthis is convoluted

[rainman_bc]

No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems ... My dad asked me, "What damn good is it?" I see his point.

**WARNING KARMA WHORING AHEAD **

Internet's also good for reading /. and posting to /.

Re:tthis is convoluted

[rbarreira]

Spam - the hardest of the ones you've mentioned.

Virii, worms - having a clue about computers will help in most cases. In the other cases, all you can do is pretty much installing patches as soon as possible.

Spyware - Tell him about Firefox.

Goofy OS problems - not a problem with the internet, I think...

Re:tthis is convoluted

[Coulson]

What good is it?

The Internet disassociates information from geography. It overcomes the boundaries of physical and temporal locality. It's everything that makes books and telephones powerful, all rolled into one!

The internet provides us with the means to assemble any group of people at any time, regardless of where they live. There is an opportunity for every real-world group, institution, business, college -- every division and subdivision of mankind, along every boundary imaginable -- to meet and discuss and disseminate information. Easily. Cheaply.

This is not trivial. This is freedom of speech and association unlimited by physical location. It is the printing press and the telegraph and the radio. It is a force multiplier for human language; it is the next step in the evolution of the human ability to communicate. That's what good it is.

Re:tthis is convoluted

[rhuntley12]

Porn

Re:tthis is convoluted

[VanillaCoke420]

Just look at TV. The technology, the medium itself hold so much promise and potential. And what do we get? Commercial breaks every 5th minute, ridiculous gameshows, horribly bad sitcoms, unbelievably stupid "reality" shows, shallow news reports where it's more important to have good looking anchors than to report news fairly and in depth, "documentaries" about religious myths and supernatural phenomenon and Atlantis.

As for the Internet, I simply don't get why some people wish to ruin the experience for everybody. Are they simply not aware of what they're doing? They are like those who vandalise other people's properties.

Re:tthis is convoluted

[Snaller]

No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems ... My dad asked me, "What damn good is it?" I see his point.


Yeah, and humans they rape and kill, make wars and blow each other up. What good are they. You see the point?

Vital Data for Your Spamming Company

[dondelelcaro]

Just a quick look through the atriks (yes, they're "at risk") website shows a number of interesting "products".

My personal favorite, the "Atriks Personal Domain Owners with Credit Cards" Database.

7,000,000+ consumers have registered a domain for their own personal use and have created Web sites that share everything from jokes to family pictures. A key part of their registration is supplying credit card information, resulting in a file with all major credit card selects available.

Unless you've been sleeping for the past 10 years, this means harvesting whois records (against the ToS) and using them to spam people. SpamHaus tidbits.

Re:Vital Data for Your Spamming Company

[dondelelcaro]

Ergh, "SpamHaus tidbits" should read: SpamHaus has a few interesting tidbits about this guy.

Re:Vital Data for Your Spamming Company

[dondelelcaro]

By forgeting the href, your mistake has doubled your mod points! Good job.

Eh, I'm maxed out already... plus, the href was there, it was just missing a " which caused it to be eaten by the "destroy all evil html" filter.

Re:Vital Data for Your Spamming Company

[WWWWolf]

Hey, wow, this is the same guy who was mentioned earlier. He pays people to turn their machines into spam zombies, and pays $1 per CPU hour (and people don't realize the program usually uses less than 1% of the CPU resources...)

uhhhh

[IronDiggy]

next up they'll sue a customer for using a spyware renover to keep their spyware off

Re:uhhhh

[telemnar]

don't laugh.

excerpted from the current Gator (nee "Claria") license:

"You agree that you will not use, or encourage others to use, any unauthorized means for the removal of the GAIN Adserver, or any GAIN-supported software from a computer."

as long as click-through licenses are legal, so is this nonsense.

Soo... let me get this straight...

[popo]

If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C...

And Company-B goes ahead and does it.

Isn't Company-B the liable party here?

e.g. -- If I tell my Landlord to kick out my loud upstairs neighbor -- and for some reason he complies and *does* it.... As far as I know my neighbor's furious, my landlord's getting sued and I'm nothing other than stoked.

Anyone?

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell from the article, the suit is more like:
You told your landlord that your loud upstairs neighbor was running a methlab up there. The landlord then kicked your neighbor out. Your neighbor is now claiming that you made up the part about the methlab and not only did he lose the apartment, but some of his stuff got broke and his skanky girlfriend left him.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[IO ERROR]

Yeah, your upstairs neighbor deserved to get kicked out anyway, because playing music loud enough that you can't hear jet engines over it is a violation of the lease.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[ZeroExistenZ]

Each ISP has an abuse@ISP.com emailadress, where you can report malicious activity of a user.

If you, as a person, notice that a user of a certain ISP is using its subscription for illegal activies (like, if someone is probing your machines for days, constantly trying to get a virus through to your domain, spamming you, you just trace them back and include logs.), or any activity that might be against their userpolicy you can email then there to report said activities. And they will investigate the matter (at the very least you get an auto-reply, it has been more then once the case I've gotten a personal reply from some ISP's in Europe), and take appropriate action if needed. So it isn't really "telling a company to do something", but merely pointing out something which will be put under investigation.

I don't know what the case was with this guy, it seems he just has emails a whole lot of ISPs and some put the spammers' domain into their spamfilters?

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[DM9290]

In many or most places counselling a criminal act is in itself a criminal act (even if the crime is not committed). It is not a stretch to believe that counselling someone to do anything could make you liable if they follow through.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[GregChant]

If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C... And Company-B goes ahead and does it. Isn't Company-B the liable party here?

Well yes, but so are you. It's called defamation of character. There can be an argument made that you willfully and knowingly sought to deceive others on the legality or ethical nature of Company C's actions by telling the ISP (Company B) that Company C was spamming you.

Defamation of character is one of those things that is just meant to be spiteful towards Person A. While Company C will probably lose, it's definitely enough to keep the case from getting thrown right out.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[belmolis]

Person A may well have liability in this case. It depends. If you make a valid complaint to your landlord about your neighbor, and your landlord follows appropriate procedures and evicts your neighbor, you are both in the clear. If you make a false complaint, knowing it to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and your landlord acts on that complaint, your neighbor would have a claim against you. Your landlord might or might not be in the clear depending on whether he followed appropriate procedures and whether it was reasonable of him to take your complaint to be valid. If you make a valid complaint but your landlord fails to follow appropriate procedures, then you should be in the clear but your landlord may be liable. The landlord-tenant example is actually not ideal as far as general tort law is concerned because landlord-tenant relations are often governed by special state or local laws.

One relevant cause of action is what is called "tortious interference". That is where A improperly interferes in the business relationship between B and C.

To take a parallel criminal example, suppose that gangster A hires hit man B to kill rival C. Surely you don't think that only hit man B has committed a crime? Gangster A is guilty at the very least of "solicitation of murder" and, depending on the jurisdiction, may be guilty of other crimes as well.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[Number 110]

Sure, and if all he did was went to the ISP and told them to kick out Atriks and they did then it would be the ISP's problem.

The problem is that he went to the ISP and said that they should kick out Atriks because they are spammers. Suddenly the situation changes.

To go back to your example if you tell your landlord to kick your neighbor out and he does so you're golden. However, if you tell your neighbor to kick your neighbor out because he is running a prostitution ring out of his apartment and he does so then your neighbor can sue you for slander because you have made a (possibly) false statement about him.

Now IANAL but if memory serves in order for a statement to be slander the person telling it has to knowingly be making a false statement and the statement has to cause harm to the person it is pertaining to. If Atriks can prove that his statement was false and that he knew it was false he can be found guilty of slander.

The reason this may proceed into court is for two reasons. The first is that as a civil tort Atriks does not have to prove reasonable doubt. They only need preponderance of evidence, which is a much lower standard. The second reason it may make it into court is because a judge is only suppose to throw out a case if it is completely without merit, so if a judge thinks there is any possibilty that Atriks could be innocent of spamming (by the legal definition) he has to let the case proceed.

Is it a screwed up system? In some ways but it is neccessary. If Atriks does not have the right to take the case to court then you might not have the right to take your case to court if someone points a finger at you and calls you a pimp, costing you your apartment and job.

And just for the record I am not Pro-Atriks. My gut feeling from all of this is that they are abusing the system and trying to shaft the person who pointed them out as spammers. All I am really saying is that this is why they are allowed to act this way. The laws that they use also protects you and it is a very difficult to take away that protection from them without giving it up for yourself.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[BitterOak]

If Person-A tells Company-B to do something which may or may not be legal to Company-C...

But there's the catch. It is most certainly not illegal for an ISP to block e-mail from a particular domain. ISPs do it all the time. This is why Company B isn't liable. Person A, however, reported on Company C's behavior, and if Person A can't subtantiate those claims, Company C can sue for damages. Even if Person A is vindicated, this can end up costing Person A a lot of money, so Person A might very well settle out of court.

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[boarsai]

okokokok!!!! - I'll turn the music down :P

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[Feanturi]

IANAL, but I don't know that Person A should be liable for defamation, because Company B still acted anyway. Surely Company B would have wanted to investigate the matter first before taking action? I don't suppose that an ISP will shut down a major account based solely on the complaints of a single person. Person A may have gotten the ball rolling, but Company B felt confident enough to act on that, and should have done so with a sense of responsibility, and a bit of research. My own ISP sent me a couple of emails, one describing a complaint of intrusions coming from my IP *cough, woops* and on another occasion from too much traffic on my line. Both of those were willful acts on my part, but I was able to just downplay it to them, and got off with a half-assed warning in both cases. Now, I'm a very minor customer, Joe Six-pack if you will, not worth a lot of money to them, but they still wanted to keep my business. So they approached the matters diplomatically. I would imagine that if they were contemplating shutting down a larger account, they would take care to look into it very carefully before doing so. Company B would then be just as guilty or moreso, of the supposed 'defamation', as they would (or should, yeah I guess that's where it all falls apart, that fucking *should*) have to have researched the matter and come to the same conclusion as Person A themselves.

Btw, it's a bit amusing to note that on the day I got the email about the intrusion attempts (I was just playing around), I had just returned from a successful job interview at that same company. :)

Re:Soo... let me get this straight...

[Desert Raven]

And they will investigate the matter

Unless they're MCI/UUNET or a handful of other major spam-supporters, in which case, it goes straight to /dev/null

(at the very least you get an auto-reply,

Maybe, there's more than a few that don't even bother with that. Even so, they don't call 'em "ignore-bots" without reason.

Hey, hey...

[MutantHamster]

If this case goes the right way, there's a ton of message boards that I can make a fortune off of.

paypal link...

[St. Arbirix]

This guy is a Computer Science and Engineering undergrad at Ohio State. It's wonderful that he could have influenced so much power over these people but I'm willing to bet he doesn't have much money otherwise.

Here's his site with the paypal link. There's some other goodies about the lawsuit and him on the site.

Re:paypal link...

[AndroidCat]

And Jay is very definitely one of the Good Guys.

Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, etc.

[waynegoode]

Want to see their website? Want to contact Atriks to offer your opinion on the matter? Their contact page.

You can even sign-up on their website. I would suggest being careful about that thought. According to their privacy statement, they can sell your name and e-mail address to (other?) spammers.

We may share some of your information such as name and e-mail address with third party sponsors.

Re:Pivotal Scene

[DigitalHammer]

Darth Haberstroh: Jay, I am...not your father.
Jay Stuler: Wait, so who is?
Darth Haberstroh: Ummm...must be one of those old fogies I sold Viagra to.
Jay: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Non-Issue

[JPyObjC Dude]

No Judge in his right mind would ever allow this blatant waste of legal resources to take place.

Re:Non-Issue

[Dogers]

No Judge in his right mind would ever allow this blatant waste of legal resources to take place.

Great, a new bit of caselaw in america then..

Maybe a change of career is justified

[InterStellaArtois]

Well, if this is the way things are going, I might just retrain as a spammer.

If the law is occasionally on their side, won't that make them just a little more socially acceptable?

This is akin to a drug dealer claiming defamation of character because the local mothers reported him, and his buyers no longer feel safe coming round his place.

Contracts lost to perform illegal activities? Defamation? They must have GOOD lawyers.

Re:Ridiculous

[fishbowl]

"Clearly there's an issue with the law when something like this is allowed to happen"

Yes, it's unfortunate when a person with a grievance seeks to have his case heard in a court of law.

Damn that legal system, giving everyone an impartial venue in which to air their grievances.

Why, the legal process ought to be open only to those people whose arguments you and I already agree with. Everybody else needs to look for some other remedy.

Televised...

[twoes00]

This should be a televised event, maybe something for "Judge Mathis" or "Judge Joe Brown", I'd love to see it...:)

Re:Televised...

[InterStellaArtois]

Better not complain about the commercial break though ...

This just in...

[fiannaFailMan]

Winchester Rifles sues Vestgard, manufacturer of bullet-proof vests and body armour.

Obviously frivolous

[scovetta]

There's absolutely no basis (at least in the article) for how this could *possibly* go for the assclowns--err, spammers. You can't be sued for libel if what you say is true.

I think this would be a great place for a counter-suit. Send a chill through the spammer community.

In related news-- I was recently approached by a spyware/spam company ("Vista") wanting me to let them place active-x ads on my sites. I wrote about it here. They offered me "a few thousand dollars". Tough to pass up...They need to litigate this.

Re:Obviously frivolous

[DeepRedux]

Not to defend spamming, but the case may not be that clear. According to the article, he called CEO Brian Haberstroh a "criminal". There is no mention of Haberstroh being charged with, much less convicted of, a crime. So this statement would not seem to be true.

The retort is that Haberstroh did things for which her should be charged, but has not been. This could be hard to prove, especially if Haberstroh stayed just inside the letter of the law.

Re:Obviously frivolous

[scovetta]

Yes, but isn't "He's a criminal!" play the line between fact and opinion?

Re:Obviously frivolous

[scovetta]

I accidently installed some spyware on my box a few days ago. The agreement was buried inside of a long "Click here if you agree" box that I found afterwards. Technically, it was my fault.

Even otherwise, is installing software on someone else's computer a felony? What law does that break? And technically, the end user themselves installed the software. The fact that they weren't aware of it could range from virus-style installation to "oh, i just clicked Yes"

A legitimate problem!

[cmburns69]

This is a legitimate problem!

Even normal companies can have practically all their external email communications shutdown if they're blacklisted by a site like spamhaus.

The problem with the blacklist system is that it's guilty until proven innocent.

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to know what the best solution is. However, there are a lot of smart people here, and perhaps together we can come up with something legal, yet effective!

Re:A legitimate problem!

[scottking]

If you have a legitimate reason to e-mail a company or person, then surely you have a good enough relationship to follow up and ask if they received your mail, and if not, when would be a good time to resend it.

Re:A legitimate problem!

[Greg@RageNet]

It's not a legitimate problem.

I have no problem recieving notifications from companies who I've agreed to recieve email from...

I do have problems with companies (including very large companies) that feel that because at one time or another I did business with them they have full right to fill my inbox with drivel and resell my address to their partners to do the same. Often they even do this when I've checked the 'I would not like to be notified of new products' (or whatever).

So if ifilm, or travelocity, or whoever else can't manage to run their email notification system in a manner that does not offend a good chunk of the recipients then they deserve to be blacklisted. There are ways to do this easily (checkbox opt-out, and double opt-in come to mind) but aren't implemented because the marketing folks know that puts their mailing lists in the toilet because the truth is that MOST people DON'T want to get emails every few days promoting this or that.

-- Greg

Re:A legitimate problem!

[vdthemyk]

Ok, how about this...DON'T SEND EMAIL SOLICITATIONS AT ALL! Instead, advertise on websites, advertise on the radio, advertise in printed news, advertise on billboards, advertise on TV...the list goes on...just stop FREAKIN' sending unsolicited emails and advertise elsewhere. It's legal, and it's effective!

Re:A legitimate problem!

[cmburns69]

This IS a legitimate problem!

My company abides by all the rules of good conduct. However, there are a couple of scenarios that break your assertions:

Scenario 1)

A site requires an email address to sign up to limit the number of accounts-per-person to 1. The site doesn't send don't send any email after the initial confirmation email.

However, if people enter in enough garbage addresses, the "good" company gets blacklisted by the various spam organizations.

Scenario 2)

A company doesn't send any email to it's customers at all. However, they can still be blacklisted if a small amount of people generate fake emails (and complaints) and sent them to blacklist organization.

Both of these scenarios are possible under the "guilty until proven innocent" model under which blacklists are currently run.

Many posters here are so quick to point out how people should be considered innocent until they've been proven guilty of things like pirating or cracking, but those same people are mighty quick to condem any attempt at the same justice when it might cause them a little inconvenience!

"Innocent until proven guilty" when sending email = Evil, and should not exist.

"Innocent until proven guilty" when pirating = Necessary to protect our freedoms!

Re:A legitimate problem!

[kindbud]

Even normal companies can have practically all their external email communications shutdown if they're blacklisted by a site like spamhaus.

Spamhaus is widely viewed as irresponsible trigger-happy fanatics by responsible companies. They don't use Spamhaus' blacklist. If you are blocked by Spamhaus, you will only be unable to communicate with the fanatics, which is very far from "practically all."

Re:A legitimate problem!

[dodobh]

If you want to use email for marketing, use a confirmed opt-in system.

COI requires the user to ask for the mail, and then actually take action to confirm that (note that merely clicking a link with a HTTP GET is not sufficient for the confirm action, you need to get the user to POST the request).
The most preferred form is an email response wth a suitably hard to break key in the mail.

This is the technique used by legitimate mailing list management software (majordomo, mailman, ezmlm, sympa, lyris, ecartis driven lists all support this).

Note that the typical double opt-in excuse of confirming by not unsubscribing is not a valid form of COI. COI requires active user participation in the second step, inaction is not an excuse.

Re:A legitimate problem!

[meringuoid]

A site requires an email address to sign up to limit the number of accounts-per-person to 1. The site doesn't send don't send any email after the initial confirmation email. However, if people enter in enough garbage addresses, the "good" company gets blacklisted by the various spam organizations.

How does that happen? If you send a single confirmation email to a garbage address, then it comes back undeliverable and you drop the address from the database. No spam there.

Or if the server's set up differently, maybe emails to non-existent users go to postmaster or something, then you get no response to the confirmation email, and then never send anything to that address ever again. No spam there, either.

Unless you're assuming that no answer to a confirmation email means it's OK to keep sending - which is opt-out, and hence spam - then I can't see how this system will get you blacklisted anywhere significant.

As for forging complaints, AFAIK SPEWS and Spamhaus operate on a spam-trap basis, rather than on forwarded complaints. ISPs with 'report spam' features will obviously be able to compare reports to their own logs and thereby detect fakes. Maybe Spamcop could be faked in this way, though...

Just filter it!

[jfengel]

According to the article, these spammers were in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. The act isn't meant to prevent people from spamming; it's meant to make it easy to filter the spam out.

There were free-speech issues involved. The design of CAN-SPAM prevents anybody from saying that they're being censored. You're allowed to send all the spam you want; that's your free speech. Your right to free speech stops the moment it enters my server, so I drop it.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what the spammer's case is. What exactly did this guy do that was illegal? If he got the ISP to filter or refuse mail from them, as far as I can tell that's precisely in keeping with the intent of the act.

I wish more spammers would get compliant with the act, so that I can ignore them even more efficiently. And I wish that the FTC would start stringing some noncompliant spammers up by their gonads until the rest of them come into compliance.

This case has marks of a SLAPP suit. Depending on what state he lives in, there may be effective countersuits, but I'm not a lawyer. When you find out where I can pitch in to buy the guy one, let me know.

Re:Just filter it!

[robyannetta]

Speaking of just filtering it... I never have a problem with spam.

I have a rule in my mail program that considers every incoming email as spam if it does not come from one of the 14 names in my address book.

How simple of a solution is that?

Re:Just filter it!

[shawb]

The wording in the article was slightly misleading.

The activities of Atriks... sending commercial email, meet the requirements of the CAN-spam Act."

What this line meant is that the activities of Atriks meet the requirements of being spam. If you look a little later in the article:

Anti-spam foundation SpamHaus has listed Atriks on its register of known spam operations (ROKSO), which states the company has violated the act by using misleading subject lines.

And...

SpamHaus also says it has had complaints that software is being installed by Atriks on users' computers without their permission - which is a felony.

Or maybe I misinterpreted the article...

Re:Just filter it!

[RedWizzard]

According to the article, these spammers were in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act.

Actually, according to the artcile, these spammers claim they were in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. Important difference there... especially with a lawsuit looming.

Re:Just filter it!

[jfengel]

It should be easy enough to verify. Another poster pointed out that the article is ambiguous, and perhaps they weren't in compliance after all. In which case the SLAPP-ness of this suit is even more apparent.

Re:Just filter it!

[AndroidCat]

They've been spamming him for two years. CAN-SPAM was only passed a year ago.

Re:Just filter it!

[saur2004]

According to the article, these spammers were in compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. The act isn't meant to prevent people from spamming; it's meant to make it easy to filter the spam out.

The CAN-SPAM act is the YOU CAN SPAM act and its another example of big business buying politians to pass a bad law. Its their attempt to rewrite the definition of spam to mean something that they do not do and not unsolicited commercial email.

Now, I'm not sure exactly what the spammer's case is. What exactly did this guy do that was illegal? If he got the ISP to filter or refuse mail from them, as far as I can tell that's precisely in keeping with the intent of the act.

He got a major black list, that many ISPs use, to list them as a source of spam. Just the fact that they are protesting so loudly that they are meeting the rules of that bad law, tells me right off that they are a spam house.

I wish more spammers would get compliant with the act, so that I can ignore them even more efficiently. And I wish that the FTC would start stringing some noncompliant spammers up by their gonads until the rest of them come into compliance.

And I wish that more and more of the destributed black lists will target those that send out mail with "ADV:" in the subject line to tick off more and more spammers that supposedly adhear to that terrible piece of legislation. Spammers have tried to sue SPEWS before. They're still there. };-)

This case has marks of a SLAPP suit. Depending on what state he lives in, there may be effective countersuits, but I'm not a lawyer. When you find out where I can pitch in to buy the guy one, let me know.

Now that I agree with.

But as for your subject line, Ive been a regular reader of the newgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email for years and years. Just filter it is tantimount to saying just hit delete. That news group has acronymed that to JHD for years. One individual once put it like this. "Saying JHD to an anti-spammer is almost the same as running up a tall hill in a full suit of armor in a thunderstorm, holding your sword up high and screeming at the top of your lungs, ALL GODS SUCK!"

Re:Just filter it!

[Tom]

You're allowed to send all the spam you want; that's your free speech.

No, it isn't. Spam has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech, and you're doing the community a huge disservice by alleging otherwise.

Spam is not free speech. Spam is forcing your speech on me. There is no freedom involved here, much to the contrary.

Posting your stuff on your website, now that is free speech.

In fact, I'd go so far to say Spam is the opposite of free speech - it is forced listening.

But you CAN help! DONATE!

[AltGrendel]

He has a PayPal account setup for donations for the legal fund.
You can find more information here

Re:But you CAN help! DONATE!

[FyRE666]

I'm helping... I've decided to pick my way through the atricks website to find a chink in their case. Unfortunately, I'm such a bumbler that the wget script I set up to collate information has a serious bug and appears to be stuck in a loop! I believe it's the part where I set a loop counter to 16,000,000 near the top but I can't be bothered to go changing things now... might lead to more bugs... Guess I'll just wait until it stops on its own ;-)

Re:But you CAN help! DONATE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Post it, maybe we can help debug it. Might take a bit of time though, and a few test runs.

Re:But you CAN help! DONATE!

[msim]

Oh oh i KNOW, as a 'hypothetical', what about a script that starts a tcp/ip session then hangs it 1/2 way through the handshake, surely that will help test the durability of their servers. ;-).

Oh and i hate spam, well the electronic stuff, the other stuff doesn't actually taste half bad, especially when camping!

Sue them back!!!!!

[www.sorehands.com]

Since Atriks wishes to be in litigation, lets grant their wish.

Everyone who has been spammed by Atriks should file a lawsuit against Atriks. Turnabout is fair play.

Re:Easy Defense

[praxis]

"Plus you could send out a one time email to every email address on the list..."

In trying to stop a spammer, I certainly would not turn to spamming. Then I would be no better than those I berate.

why is ICanSpam a defense?

[alizard]

There's a legal definition of prohibited spam under the act, and there's the entirely different definition (unsolicited junk mail) in the AUP contracts the spammers signed with their ISPs which is consistent with the popular definition and the definition used in most dictionaries recent enough to include spam as anything but a delicious canned meat product from Hormel.

Breach of contract is the authority that ISPs are using to shut spammers down.

The victim was reporting violations of AUP contracts with their ISPs to the ISPs, NOT violations of ICANSPAM.

This case should have already have been thrown out of court.

Anyone tracked down and named the lawyers yet?

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Anyone tracked down and named the lawyers yet?

Plaintiff:
Bosen and Springer, PLLC.
One New Hamsphire Ave. Suite 215
Portsmouth, NH 03801
A three-man operation. You can have a successful three-person law firm, but this combined with the fact that they spelled "Tortious" incorrectly in the complaint does tend to harm their credibility.

Defendant:
Jeremy A. Miller, Esq.
100 Hall Street; Suite 102
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
millerip.com

From the images on the defendant's website

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[muckdog]

I can also say based on the fact that I work just down the street from these spammers. None of the building on 55 Bridge street are very big so the campany can't be very big either. Anyone have some good suggestions on how to annoy them in person without being arrested?

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[ScrewMaster]

Throw a few cans of Hormel's canned meat product through their windows.

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[killjoe]

Judges almost never throw out a case. It's extremely rare. They believe that it's up to the juries.

Of course that means whoever has the most money wins.

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[msim]

fill their mailbox with that spray-hardening packing foam? i think it's the kinda stuff they use in filling tyre punctures.

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[Eskarel]

And of course it's still a frivilous lawsuit since it's not libel or slander if it's true, no matter how damaging it may be.

If I someone a sheep fucker and it causes them financial damage, that's slander, but not if I have pictures.

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[redhog]

Nonono, fill their snail-mail-box with a thousands of dummy mails. From what I know, there's no law against delivering mail yourself rather than using the post to do it for you. Perheaps you can write in the mails that "You can buy fully LEGAL methods for sending MASS EMAIL to customers" or something...

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[rs79]

Send them spam that under the law is not spam?

Don't all do this at once.

(He's still an idiot for libelling them.)

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[muckdog]

Actually its a federal crime to put something in a mailbox unless you are a US postal employee.

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[arbitraryaardvark]

Plaintiff: "Bosen and Springer, PLLC. One New Hamsphire Ave. Suite 215 Portsmouth, NH 03801 A three-man operation." Correct. But you also get! phone: 603.427.5500 fax: 603.427.5510 John Bosen admitted in NH and MA Jon Springer admitted in NH Christopher Mulligan admitted in NH and ME But wait you also get: How to File a Misconduct Complaint With the ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE OFFICE * The complaint, called a grievance, must be in writing. * The conduct must have occurred within the past two years. * The grievance must be filed by someone with standing. This means the person complaining must be directly affected by the conduct or present when the conduct occurs. * The grievance must include concise facts that, if true, would establish a violation of the NH Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. * Each grievance must be sworn to in front of a notary public or justice of the peace. The language of the oath shall be: "I hereby swear or affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the information contained in this grievance is true to the best of my knowledge." Grievances against lawyers must be addressed to: NH Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Concord, NH 03301 * I do not recommend ever filing an attorney disciplinary complaint without a solid understanding of the rules and the facts, and without a genuine good faith belief a rule has been violated. This info is a starting place only, pointing out one available option *

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[redhog]

You are a strange strange country...
Here in the EU, the post is not even a state-owned operation in all countries, and for example in my country, sweden, there are even several more or less successfull post operators/delivery services. And it is, and has allways been, very common that companies deliver their own advertising material (snailmail spam) rather than send it through the post...

Re:why is ICanSpam a defense?

[msim]

wow really?

Here in Australia you can put whatever the hell you want in someones letterbox, as the other child poster said lots of companies get their junkmail delivered by kids on pushies for a token pay of sweet f/all.

It's a sweet way to corner the market however i must admit.

Perhaps we should take a lesson from THOREAU...

[Anonymous Coward]

...In his essay entitled "Civil Disobedience" , or perhaps it was the beginning of "Walking", I don't have my reference material handy, he stated that these types of things only hold weight if we support them.

Of course, he was talking about the government and his VEHEMENT disagreemtn with the way they were handling things. He stated that the only way to deal with this was to not pay taxes, and not acknowledge the institution. Let them carry him away, but he will not submit to what he doesn't agree with simply because everyone else was.

We could take a lesson in this case. The SPAMEE could just ignore the lawsuit. What else could possibly happen? Contempt of court for not appearing, right? WHO THE HELL CARES. I know it's drastic and the consequences could possibly be dire *in the beginnig anyway( but if we ALL reported every spammer at the same time and they all tried to file lawsuits against us and we ALL ignored them, wouldn't we be takin gaction by NOT taking action?

A lesson from Thoreau, Ghandi, and a lot of other unmentioned non-violent protestors. This is really crazy. I can't believe how many people on here are actually suggesting not reporting and letting this go on. to the people that do NOT suggest this, KUDOS, I'm with you!

Re:Perhaps we should take a lesson from THOREAU...

[mparar]

Offtopic: I am constantly surprised by the number of people who can't seem to get poor guy's name right. It's spelt M.K. Gandhi. The Ghandi spelling is all over the place for some reason. Probbaly got to be connected to phonetics. 'Ghandi' very closely resembles a colloquial Hindi word for the rear-end. :-)
Incidentally, his doctrine of non-violence is recognized among a large group of people as more of a shrewd political strategy, than something based on an absolute moral framework.

Simple way to win

[antifoidulus]

Just forward the spam he was sent(with forged headers of course) to the judge about 10 times. I think the defendant may win some sympathy.

Where's EFF, CDT, etc?

[alizard]

This is a freedom of speech issue, and probably a slam-dunk in terms of a countersuit... since the victim was reporting to the ISPs that their customers were in violation of AUP provisions regarding the sending of unsolicited electronic junk mail, NOT violations of the ICANSPAM act.

Re:Where's EFF, CDT, etc?

[saur2004]

This is a freedom of speech issue, and probably a slam-dunk in terms of a countersuit... since the victim was reporting to the ISPs that their customers were in violation of AUP provisions regarding the sending of unsolicited electronic junk mail, NOT violations of the ICANSPAM act.

Very good point. Most /.ers know very well the EFFs stance on spam and are not too thrilled with it. Its the only issue, (supporting the spammers position), that has kept me from supporting them. Although I can, sort of see their position, (barely) I want to see if they are going to support this individual in defending his free speech rights against the spammer.

Ive been waiting around for a case like this because it will bring out the true position of organizations like the EFF. If they do the right thing here and support this individual who complained, then more power to them. If they do nothing or even support the spammer, then that will confirm to me just where they stand. And Im sure others will take notice as well. If they decide to go that route then I say the EFF can go FOAD.

Re:Where's EFF, CDT, etc?

[Sabalon]

It's a company, an ISP, that is blocking the e-mail.
It isn't the government blocking it, therefor it's not a freedom of speech issue.

This Proves it...

[Cmdr-Absurd]

We ARE in Soviet Russia. -- Spammers sue YOU.

What he should really go for...

[Anonymous Coward]

He should do what he can to insure the attorney representing the spammer is disbarred. Nothing says "Happy Valentines Day, Mother Fucker," than being kicked out of the only job they've trained to do.

Old fashion way

[future assassin]

Get spam and lose your mind
Get spammer banned/blocked
Get spammer to sue you
Get spammers personal info from law suit

Spammer found sleeping with fishes.

You win case as your alibi is that you were too busy removing spam from your inbox to do anything that smart.

Re:Old fashion way

[smitke]

You might want to post murder suggestions as Anonymous Coward.

Especially with a user name like "future assassin"!!

If this case goes wrong...

[Max Threshold]

If this case goes wrong, I think it opens the door for perfectly moral vigilanteism.

Re:Ridiculous

[shawb]

That grievance should be a reasonable one. I should not be able to sue someone for saying that I am wearing a blue sweater when, indeed, I am wearing a blue sweater.

Maybe the judge took the case so he can award the defendant legal fees in the counter suit I hope he is taking up. Yeah... or maybe this Jay guy should sue the spammers for defamation, claiming that falsely claiming the he is defaming them is hurting his public image.

I haven't actually seen the specifics (except for what's in the article) but these guys are listed as known spammers, using underhanded and illegal tactics to get their emails through. They do not appear to be a legitimate advertising firm.

Only In America...

[PhYrE2k2]

Only In America...
That's about all I have to say.

Why is it that the courts actually consider cases like these that make absolutely no sense, while people who commit actual crimes have trouble getting court dates. Nice legal system.

---

On another note, the spamee never did any blocking. The ISP does the blocking... so technically, the spamee didn't really do anything but state that he received Spam.

-M

Re:Only In America...

[fishbowl]

"Only In America...
That's about all I have to say."

The US hardly has a global monopoly on fucked up legal systems. Maybe you live in Utopia, but I don't think so.

"Why is it that the courts actually consider cases like these that make absolutely no sense, while people who commit actual crimes have trouble getting court dates. Nice legal system."

Number one, the right to due process is guaranteed, and any prejudice you apply to determine that this case has no merit, will be an abridgement of the plaintiff's basic Constitutional rights.

Number two, there's no reason to believe that any court has actually considered this case. It has been filed. Anyone can file a suit on any damage. Now a judge might get this on his bench and read it and dismiss it immediately. That happens a whole lot. Very few lawsuits ever reach a courtroom.

Number three, when criminals have problems getting their cases heard, it's usually because they have taken advantage of processes that extend the hearing date, or because the prosecution has done so, or both. Are you talking about appeals of convictions? That's different.

Number four, why are you bundling the civil and criminal courts together into one "nice legal system?"

What "actual criminal" are you thinking of that could not get a hearing set?

Re:Only In America...

[PhYrE2k2]

You win :)

>> messed up legal systems

Very true- there are some bad ones out there

>>

I guess I was thinking of the many cases that have actually been won that waste ever-so-much time. Of which could include the McDonalds "oh crap- I didn't realize the coffee in the cup was hot when I was holding it in a paper cup, so I would have never known to have been careful not to spill it on myself", Michael Jackson spending a few months in court for what should be a simple trial, etc.

There are legit civil cases which have much more merit.

I did mistake the filing for actually being brought into court however.

You do have some good points, and I agree with most of them... It's a stereotype that the US legal system allows people to sue for way too many things.

Re:Only In America...

[emilymildew]

No, not just hot. 180 degrees. That's scalding. That's capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

Coffee at 140 degrees spilled on your lap? Man, that must be a little painful. This McDonald's had had people complaining about the heat (which was far, far over the company standard) and other people had received 3rd degree burns. THIRD DEGREE. Do you understand how painful that is?

That woman spent seven days in the hospital.

I am so tired of people saying that the McDonald's lawsuit was frivolous, especially people who don't know any of the details involved, just that some old lady put the coffee cup in her lap and then was surprised that it spilled. She was in a car and opened it to put cream in when it spilled, dumping 180 degree liquid onto her lap. She deserved to be compensated for their negligence.

Re:Only In America...

[fishbowl]

"Of which could include the McDonalds "oh crap- I didn't realize the coffee in the cup was hot when I was holding it in a paper cup"

No, you won't get away with that one.

McDonalds was in the wrong in that case, knew they were in the wrong, and the huge punitive damages that everybody thinks were so outrageous, were a punishment for their attempt to cover up the fact that they knew this was a safety problem.

Re:Only In America...

[fishbowl]

>She deserved to be compensated for their negligence.

All she had asked for was assistance paying for her skin grafts. McDonald's people were such complete bastards about this, that the issue turned into a lawsuit. When it came out in the lawsuit that McDonald's *knew* there was a problem, and had tried to cover it up in this instance, the punitive damages were levied for the amount of a single day's coffee sales.

Re:They can't win..

[Vengie]

Al Sharpton: Could I be heard your honor? I heard about this matter I would like to address this court on what I consider...
Judge Sharpley: I'm sorry Reverend, but you have no standing here.
Al Sharpton: I have standing as an American citizen speaking up on a civil rights violation.
Judge Sharpley (Speaking while Sharpton speaks): Reverend Sharpton, I will ask you to step down, you have no standing here in this meeting.
Sharpton (Speaking while Judge Sharpley speaks): I'm standing as Bobby Kennedy was standing on the steps of the courthouse in Alabama.
Judge Sharpley: No one is denying this little girl an education, sir. She just can't play Annie.
Al Sharpton: You may think this is a small matter, but this is no small matter. This child is being denied the right to play an American Icon because she doesn't match the description. Those descriptions were crafted 50 years ago. We suppose to be in a different day.
Judge Sharpley: Reverend…
Al Sharpton: You talk about racial equality, how we're making progress. The problem with that progress is it's always a day away. Tomorrow! Tomorrow! You love that because it's always a day away. I'm here to stick out my chin today. Today! Give us an African American Spider-Man. Give us a black that can run faster than a speeding bullet and leap over a tall building in a single bound. Not tomorrow, today. Today! The sun needs to come out today, not tomorrow your honor. God almighty, give the American people a black orphan Annie. It's just not good enough to say she doesn't look the part.
(People clap)
Al Sharpton (To Alan): That's what we call a rabbit son. Denny Crane.
(Al Sharpton leaves)

Re:Ridiculous

[Dashing Leech]

"Why, the legal process ought to be open only to those people whose arguments you and I already agree with."

I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying. The legal process should have a mechanism such that a case can be reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent. There should also be an automatic fine or other penalties for cases deemed frivolous under such a system as a means of discouraging people (especially lawyers) from submitting them unless they're pretty sure they have a good case.

Terms of service?

[Hamster Lover]

I didn't see anyone mention this before, but every ISP I have ever had business with prohibits bulk email in their terms of service, regardless of the CANSPAM act.

I don't know who Atriks contracts for internet service, but dollars to donuts I bet their terms of service prohibit bulk emailing.

Re:Terms of service?

[discordja]

Uh, if you want to talk about local ISPs sure, but these guys aren't using comcast cable is my wager. For example, Internap houses a number of spammers and unless you start really breaking laws they will quite happily turn a blind eye. This is the case for the majority of enterprise bandwidth service providers. It's all about the $$.

Re:Terms of service?

[idiot900]

There exist ISPs that are friendly to spam. For example, these fuckers seem like they'd be happy to be your spamming ISP. Their hosting prices are pretty high ($350/mo for 5GB transfer), which I'd imagine is because spam-friendly ISPs are rare.

(By the way, judging by a reverse lookup of the contact phone number, it seems like this thing is run by some guy out of his house in the Chicago suburbs. I'd hate to be a spammer and have my home address so easily available...)

Re:Terms of service?

[idiot900]

Actually: I'd hate to be the guy that Google lists as the owner of the contact number. At least one other reverse lookup website returns a business address, not a home address.

Re:Ridiculous

[Ironsides]

Maybe the judge took the case so he can award the defendant legal fees in the counter suit I hope he is taking up. Yeah... or maybe this Jay guy should sue the spammers for defamation, claiming that falsely claiming the he is defaming them is hurting his public image.

It does not appear the lawsuit has gone to court yet. The law (as far as I know) states that the lawsuit must at least go before a judge before it can be dismissed. Once it goes before the judge, then we can see it thrown out on the first day. Until then, it is in process and no judge has seen it yet.

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[puck01]

Don't forget their toll free number:

866-624-7008

if things go wrong

[Fuzzums]

it's time te give up on e-mail.
i'll write my own mail solution. one time access, invitation only. you would have to log on to my system in order to send me an email.

if you want me to read the mail you'll have to pay me 10 in advance, which will be refunded if i think your mail isn't spam.

my /. account will get a unique mail-address and the headers will be checked.

Re:if things go wrong

[Captain DaFt]

Or you could just use Cashette.com. (I'm a very satisfied customer!) };-)

Name of "CAN-spam Act"

[mgkimsal2]

The fact that we have a law named "CAN SPAM" is weird. Maybe someone thought "CAN" might be read as "to stop" ("can your mouth, buddy"), but to me and most people it's "can" as in "is able to" or "has permission to". VERY strange name for something - I thought it when it became law, and just right now.

"We comply with the CAN SPAM act".

Sounds perfectly legit, really. "If we do X, we CAN SPAM".

Why couldn't they have come up with some other acronym to call it the STOP SPAM act or something similarly less ambiguous???

Broadband Reports' story...

[antdude]

Broadband Reports was one of the first stories I saw about this.

Screw 'em

[CypherXero]

I'm going to keep reporting spam to their ISP, their host, and the FCC for as long as I live.

Donations?

[AstroDrabb]

Is there anywhere we geeks and donate a few bucks to help this guy out?

Seriously, we need to pull together and help this guy. It could have been anyone of us that reports spam. Maybe we, as a community, can donate enough cash and help this poor guy get the EFF to defend him?

Re:Donations?

[Justin205]

As referenced at least once earlier in the comments, here.

Re:Donations?

[DiveX]

I just sent the guy $5. I'll drink one less premium beer tonight and toast to the spam fighter with the others.

http://spamlawsuit.spamshield.org/

Re:Donations?

[TekPolitik]

Is there anywhere we geeks and donate a few bucks to help this guy out?

The fund set up for Joey McNicol's defence will most likely come to the party. This is exactly the sort of thing the fund was set up for.

Already happened in 2002.

[Spy der Mann]

Australian Spammer Sues Back. Submission text:

We've all heard the one about the spammers begin sued. Now, an Ausie spammer is suing back, for being blacklisted. Claiming damages and equipment replacement costs and so on. The whole article is over at Yahoo. So, I guess now, not only are we subjected to the spam, but we can't block it either?

I don't know what happened to the guy. But it's certainly a legal precedent. What do you think?

Re:Already happened in 2002.

[AceCaseOR]

But it's certainly a legal precedent.

IANAL

I don't't think so. The case in question was in Australia. This case is in the US. If this was a jury trial I could see the Australian case used in an attempt to sway the jury. However, I doubt that using the Australian case with the current suit will fly in court.

Re:Already happened in 2002.

[msim]

i tried the yahoo url that you gave, it just sent up a doccument not found error. Could you check it again? im curious about this one.

Cheers.

Re:Already happened in 2002.

[eric76]

But it's certainly a legal precedent. What do you think?

No. It's not a legal precedent. At least, it wouldn't be in the U.S.

In the US, for it to be a legal precedent, he would have to win the lawsuit in a court high enough for it to be a legal precedent.

And then it would only be a legal precedent for lower courts beneath that one. It would not set a legal precedent for other courts on its' level or for lower courts not under it.

It wouldn't even be a legal precedent for the same court that decided the case. Although it is unlikely, that court could hear an identical case the next day and decide 100% different.

For example, a municipal court can set no legal precedent at all, even on lesser courts in the same jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court can and does set precedents that are binding on every US court.

Re:Already happened in 2002.

[julesh]

IANAL

I don't't think so. The case in question was in Australia. This case is in the US.

I don't know about the US, but I believe the UK has a system where if a question comes up in court that has been settled in other countries but never in the UK, the judge will consider the verdicts of those other countries' courts and whether or not any of the reasoning that was applied in them is suitable for application to the case he is hearing. If the US has such a system, then it is a precedent, albeit not a very good one. The case would be substantially altered by the US constitutional right to free speech, which AFAIK has no equivalent in Australian law (?).

Re:Ridiculous

[chris09876]

I was part of the group that worked on the site, yeah. It's run on a red hat linux server at Peer1 Networks (www.peer1.net) in Toronto. I'm using it on my sites, and so far I'm quite liking it.

Link with defendent's Paypal info

[mikeswi]

http://spamlawsuit.spamshield.org/

quote

I am being sued by Brian Haberstroh aka Atriks Inc aka Distributed Mail Corporation.

Since at least April 2003 I have been receiving unsolicited bulk email (spam) from this group. As all spam experts will recommend, I complained to the ISP(s) supporting these spammers. As spamming is against the Terms of Service of almost every ISP, the spammers found themselves losing their accounts. They apparently are angry that spamming has become difficult for them and blame me.

I believe this is a frivilous lawsuit designed to harass and intimidate. If I can be sued simply for complaining about spammers, then anyone can be.

Hence I intend to fight this frivilous suit. But unfortunately our legal system costs money.

If you would like to help, send your checks or money orders to:
Jay Stuler
5072 Open Meadows Dr
Apt 4
Columbus, OH 43228
Paypal donations can be made to:
spamlawsuit@yahoo.com

/quote

Re:Ridiculous

[chris09876]

What setup are you using? If you're really having a problem (and not trying to do something you shouldn't), let us know and we'll fix it. There's a comments page

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[rpozz]

Their 'privacy' statement includes the following - watch out!

When you visit Atriks.com, we collect some basic information about your computer, such as:

* IP address (your computer''s unique signature)
* Operating system (eg: Windows 2000)
* Browser software (eg: Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape)
* Internet Service Provider (eg: AOL, Mindspring, etc...)
* Other numeric codes used to identify a computer

The information we collect is aggregated to reflect the population as a whole rather than focused on individuals. We use it to help us better understand the people who visit Atriks.com. In addition, like many other sites with paid advertising, we disclose some of this aggregate information to advertisers to inform them of the number of people who have seen and clicked on their advertisements.

we need to stop the bs with these idiots

[seabreezemm]

and just jail them, take all the comp equip, freeze the bank accounts/profits and bar them from ever using the net again. Its time the net rapist get what they deserve and stop making the victims the badguys.

Re:we need to stop the bs with these idiots

[ElDuderino44137]

At first read ...
I was all ...
Yeah ...
String 'em up and stuff.

Then I thought about it.
We are the real idiots.

We set up a system to send mail ...
by which anyone and his brother or pet turkey can set up their own eMail server and ...
Then we complain when their pet turkeys clog up our in boxes.

pfft

Sleep with dogs, get fleas..

[faedle]

Isn't this the same guy who was operating a toner scam some time ago, doing some insider trading, and got his ass handed to him by the FTC?

It won't

[Illserve]

Fortunately(?) everyone is affect by spam equally.

This includes judges.

They will hate the prosecution from the word go and have them held in contempt of court just for sneezing, including the laywers, and hand out capital sentences.

What good is it?

[Pan T. Hose]

No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems ... My dad asked me, "What damn good is it?"

Internet is good mostly for two things: pornography and Wikipædia.

This could actually be good precendent...

[Supp0rtLinux]

So the next time a disgruntled employee rats my company out to the BSA, I can simply sue the employee for defamatory remarks, etc as these spammers did. At least now I'll get some revenge when I cough up for all the pirated software I've been using. ;)

Re:This could actually be good precendent...

[fishbowl]

> So the next time [I have some grievance and believe
> I have been damaged by some party] I can simply
> [petition the court to hear my argument and my
> request for compensation]

Essentially, yes. You can even petition for a temporary order to force the party to cease whatever action you believe abridges your rights. Your case might even be granted a hearing. In some states, you are *guaranteed* a hearing, on ANY matter.

Does it mean you're guaranteed to prevail? NO. Does it mean the defendant is going to be pushed into bankruptcy by merely following the process, attending the hearings, etc.? NO.

The problem in this case, is the defendant might be in the wrong.

The case isn't about SPAM. It's about the defendant's allegations that the CEO is "a criminal", and the fact that the defendant used this claim to cause damages to the plaintiff.

No doubt the plaintiff is a right bastard, but the defendant has made some horrible mistakes in the way he has gone about seeking justice, and may have committed a more serious offense against the plaintiff than the plaintiff has against the defendant.

Or, perhaps the case will be read by a judge and dismissed without a hearing.

Re:Easy Defense

[shawb]

You would love it if you got emails like that?

Then please, if you have recieved unsolicited e-mail, please click HERE and enter any information pertaining to these unsolicited a-mails. Be sure to have your credit card, social security number and mother's maiden name handy.

Re:Ridiculous

[fishbowl]

"I think the point was the use of lawsuits for what is effectively extortion and partly bullying."

The plaintiff can enumerate damages, and it is not at all clear that his rights were not abridged by the defendant. I don't want to defend them because they are spammers, but I don't see any basis for denying their rights to process.

"reviewed for frivolousness before it costs the defendant a cent."

Has it cost the defendant anything? He may have chosen to consult an attorney, etc., but what has this case which has only been filed, actually cost the defendant?

If rights were abridged, e.g., if Stuler made false or exaggerated statements to cause the ISP to take action, and he's wrong, it might not even get mentioned that the company was a "spammer".

Two wrongs do not make a right, especially not when you're talking civil damages.

Stuhler apparently called the CEO "a criminal".
If nothing else, he'd better have his bases covered for a slander claim!

Did you actually read the complaint?!

[glassesmonkey]

This isn't a lawsuit over spam or CAN-SPAM. This OSU student contacted mulitple ISPs of the ATRIKS folks and...
* called the President a "criminal"
* stated that his "personal mission is to stop ATRIKS whenever he can"
* called them a "notorious spam gang"

So if he can't argue that the president is not in fact a criminal, he is in trouble. The spam gang thing, well that probably passes legal muster.
Let this be a lesson to those writting to abuse@some-isp.net. Keep it civil.

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?!

[shawb]

Well, according to the article and other sources ALTRIKS is doing some illegal things... such as harvesting email records from whois queries and installing malware on people's computers without their express permission. If the president authorized these actions, that would indeed make him a criminal.

Now and if this is all wrong and all of the sources (including Spamhaus and ALTRIKS OWN WEBSITE) that list ALTRIKS illegal operations is just part of a massive campaign by the defendant to defame ALTRIKS, then I'm fine with the defendant being penalized. Then he would also be able to get busted for hacking into ALTRIKS own web site.

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?!

[Alfred Montbank]

Because of course there's no way in hell that the plaintiff would make anything up before the trial to make them look less stupid.

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?!

[ElDuderino44137]

And what's wrong with having a personal mission?

A mission in life doesn't imply a vendetta. ... The Dude

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?!

[grouse]

No, he would be a criminal if he had been convicted by a court. In the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty. Calling someone a criminal is grounds for a prima facie libel case.

Re:Novel idea --

[fishbowl]

> If no one uses Email anymore,

But how will the old people communicate?

Re:Ridiculous

[AK Marc]

Yes, it's unfortunate when a person with a grievance seeks to have his case heard in a court of law.

Even better, when you have a problem with a person, but no actual legal grievance, you can make up something and go to court over it. If you can outspend them enough, you can actually win with your fabricated charges. Plus, even if you lose, you get the personal satisfaction of screwing over someone that you don't like. It's a win - win situation (well, not for the person that was innocent, but who cares about them).

Oh, and don't forget about the "rules" that prevent frivilous lawsuits by disbaring offending lawyers and such. Just don't ask with what frequency such cases result in sanctions against the lawyer that filed them.

Call em!

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Call em and let them know you don't like spam

Phone: 603-624-7008 | Fax: 603-624-9089
Toll Free: 866-624-7008

Buy Insurance Against Frivolous Lawsuits

[bigtallmofo]

I don't know why, but most people don't seem to know that you can purchase what's called an Umbrella Policy from your current insurance agent that will protect you against frivolous lawsuits like this. The cost? $150 to $300 per year for up to $1 million of protection.

Here's a FAQ on it:

http://www.iii.org/individuals/auto/b/umbrella/

You're just crazy to risk pissing anyone off without such a policy. Think about it. For $300 per year you can feel confident that some jerk can't shut you up just because you can't defend your right to say truthful things. Instead, let your insurance company pay to defend you in court!

Summons

[AstroDrabb]

Has anyone (especially a lawyer) read the summons to this guy? Scroll down and read item number 22. It states:

The defendant has repeatedly contacted the third parties who provided Internet access the Plaintiff[sic], knowing that a contract existed at the time between the third party and ATRIKS, and has convinced the third parties to terminate their contracts with ATRIKS.

Please. Is the prosecuting attorney trying to claim that this guy had knowledge of the third party contracts for this "company" ATRIKS? Come on now. Any lawyer with more then 4 brain-cells should be able to beat this case.

Thankfully, some other /.ers pointed me to this donation site. I will certainly drink some crap beer for a night and give the extra money to help this guy out!

Sick an tired of confusion over Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Get it through your heads people. Free speech is not about commerce and never was meant to be The Founders meant POLITICAL speech *not* COMMERCIAL speech. They weren't concend abotu the guy trying to make a buck--they were concerned about the revolutionary trying to establish and keep a democracy in the face of tyrannt and monarchs. Spam is commercial and comes under rules governing commerce. read the letters and speaches of the Founders at the Convention.

Re:Sick an tired of confusion over Free Speech

[jfengel]

They were concerned about speech: political, commercial, social, anything. Free as in freedom: say anything you want, as long as you're not threatening somebody. The more limits you put on speech, the less free you are.

That said, there's definitely a limit to how loud you're allowed to speak, and that seems to set a precedent on spam. But the guys who designed CAN-SPAM set it up to avoid the whole problem. They were afraid that the court would throw out the baby with the bathwater if it appeared that they were restricting speech.

I find that politically rather savvy of them, even if it also played directly into the hands of the Direct Marketing Association.

Re:Sick an tired of confusion over Free Speech

[AndroidCat]

even if it also played directly into the hands of the Direct Marketing Association.

More like "What is thy bidding Master?"

It has happened before

[Duc de Montebello]

In 2002, in Australia, a spammer tried to sue the guy who reported them to the SPEWS blacklist. Case was dismissed, see the result here:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page /0,5478,5284073%255E421,00.html

and

http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/

Attempt to stifle public participation (SLAPP)

[Chatmag]

From an op-ed on our site dated 19 September 2004

A recent lawsuit has been filed against Jay Stuler by Brian Haberstroh /aka/ Atriks Inc. /aka/ Distributed Mail Corporation. According to a web site detailing the plight of Mr. Stuler, he is being sued by the company after he complained they had spammed him with unwanted advertisements. The company has filed a suit, alleging that Mr. Stuler has interfered with their normal business, causing them monetary and other harm.

Virtually every web hosting company posts an "Acceptable Use Policy", in which spamming is prohibited, and sites determined to be spamming can lose their hosting contract. In addition, hosting providers provide an email address to report spam and other violations, generally an abuse@ email address. Hosting providers invite the public to submit alleged spam for investigation.

Providers in general do not terminate clients for a few complaints, but act when a number of complaints are received. We know of no provider that would terminate a contract after receiving complaints from one person.

It may well be that Mr. Stuler was singled out from other complainants due to his public participation and comments within NANAE, the Usenet Group devoted to email spam and related issues. While his comments may not of been favorable to the plaintiff, he has every right to state his position regarding spam in general and any alleged spam company. Whether the comments he made falls into the category of slander is up to a court to determine, should the case come to trial.

The broader issue is whether we as Internet users have the right to file complaints regarding spam, and the right to publicly participate in online discussions regarding the growing spam problem.

Suits such as this are often times filed to dissuade people from participating in anti spam activities or posting within news groups or discussion forums. The general term is SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and is not legal in most U.S. States. It would be up to the court to determine if this particular suit falls within the guidelines of a SLAPP.

As long as Internet web hosts provide an abuse email address, we encourage users to continue to complain about alleged spamming operations, and allow the hosting providers to determine whether a company violates their Acceptable Use Policy, and deal with the company in a timely manner. Public participation on discussion boards and news groups is a fundamental part of online life, and we are opposed to the attempts by some to stife discussions of the issues.

A question about formatting.

[jim_v2000]

I must be a n00b. How do you insert links into your posts so that the words are linked, but the URL doesn't show up in the post? Thank you for enlightening my ignorance.

Re:A question about formatting.

[julesh]

The URLs always show up in everyone's posts to start with, but they disappear when somebody mods the post up.

Re:They can't win..

[fiannaFailMan]

Hrrmph! Some sense-of-humour-deprived mod didn't mod you offtopic. I'm jealous!

The Slashdot Effect

[ArticleI]

I don't know about you, but I think I am going to go to Atriks website and hit the reload button a few times. Maybe you should, too.

Re:The Slashdot Effect

[Legion303]

I accidentally set Firefox to reload their page every 30 seconds. Damn this confusing technology! :(

Spam Wars: The Gathering Shadow

[douglips]

The Gathering Shadow

It is a time of uncertainty.
CAN-SPAM's ambiguous tariff statutes
mandate close reexamination of
galactic spam import quotas. Interim
Prince Jay Stuler has co-chaired
a subcommittee to draft amendments
to existing trade policies

Meanwhile, spam regulatory agencies
are being heavily lobbied by a
consortium of bulk email interest
groups and their address suppliers to
streamline loading restrictions for
class UCE emails. The shipping

Re:Ridiculous

[Dimensio]

A motion to dismiss was already filed and rejected. The judge is clearly an incompetent idiot who should be tossed from the bench and possibly shot. Apparently this judge thinks that it's perfectly reasonable for Jay, who has never been to the state of New Jersey or done business there, to be sued in New Jersey.

Atriks is run by criminals, and -- as I said before -- the plaintiffs should be killed.

Re:The defendant should kill the spammers...

[ElDuderino44137]

Spam' makes' people' angry ;)

In America...

[thej1nx]

In America... spammers sue you!

Motion to Dismiss: Anti-SLAPP, not CAN SPAM

[holt_rpi]

I am not admitted to practice in New Hampshire (I don't even know where the suit was filed), and none of this is legal advice - that said...

"SLAPP" is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. It basically means all of the lawsuits that big companies file against "the little guy" when "the little guy" exercises his First Amendment rights to protest in a "matter of public concern." A really good run-down of the reasoning behind Massachusetts' anti-SLAPP statute (only because that's the one I'm most familiar with) is here. Historically, these suits will often present as claims for defamation or "interference with contractual relations" for the statements made by the defendant.

There are certain legal tests that one must meet in order to have their "petitioning activity" qualify as being "protected" under the statute. Without more facts and knowledge of the analagous statute in NH (if there even is one), I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether or not "contacting SpamHaus with information about a spammer" would fit. Might be a good case to bump up the appellate process and make new law in the jurisdiction, though. ;)

The advantage of filing a Special Motion to Dismiss under these Anti-SLAPP statutes is that frequently, they allow for an immediate award of costs and attorney's fees, effectively stopping the frivolous lawsuit in its tracks and strongly discouraging companies from filing such suits in the future.

This guy should find a lawyer, explain ALL of the facts of the suit, and ask her to consider if this could be seen as a SLAPP suit, and how to proceed. Like I've said in other posts, most bar associations have lawyer referral services (LRS) that require member attorneys to give a free or cheap initial consultation. It sounds like this would be a great case for someone to take on.

Not all lawyers are bloodsucking bottom-feeders. Some are, and they give the rest of us a bad name. Just keep an open mind when you want a lawyer. ;)

Re:Motion to Dismiss: Anti-SLAPP, not CAN SPAM

[This is outrageous!]

This thread on the case answers you:

Anti-SLAPP was shot down in NH
:(

Spam can't defend itself well

[Master_T]

Spammers aren't going to be able to afford big legal battles because spam is not a profitable industry. The only reason that the spammers can afford to do it is because spam is as cheap as free advertising. Not because it is an incredibly effective medium. Imagine, (heaven forbid) what would happen to spammers if the postal service attached a surcharge, even of half a penny, to all emails. Spam would die sooner than Ben Affleck's carreer after "Daredevil". Spyware however, is a bigger problem because that is a profitable business because it is also a cheap medium to obtain valuable sell-able information. They are quickly amassing the money to come into the open and begin their tyranny in courts. However, I expect to see very strict legislation emerge about putting things on people's computers without their consent (with a new definition of "Consent" emerging, excluding cookies and non-executable temps). Spam and Spyware raise questions that simply must be answered eventually.

"Compliance with CAN-SPAM" = meaningless

[EvilStein]

I used to work for a company that was turning into a "targeted bulk email advertising" company. They took great care to ensure that every email sent out was fully CAN-SPAM compliant.

Nearly 9,000,000 emails per night on some nights. CAN-SPAM means just that - you can spam. The emails were fully compliant but were nothing more than advertising. 100% junk email. All of it.

I believe that we should stand up and demand that the CAN-SPAM act be repealed immediately.

Ignore a lawsuit? NO!

[EvilStein]

You know what happens? he'll LOSE in a "default judgement." Then they have free reign to attach his wages, levy (and drain) his entire bank account, and there's nothing that you can do to stop it. They won't even return calls to your lawyer at that point.

Not responding to a lawsuit is the WORST thing that you can ever do. It happened to me (see other posts, I couldn't afford a lawyer) and I got completely and totally fucked over in the end.

he *HAS* to respond to it or he will suffer dire consequences. Welcome to the lovely American legal system.

Re:No, Government wants SPAM prosecuted

[AndroidCat]

SPAM is the Hormel product. You must mean that the government wants SPAM Prosciutto.

Re:Well, now what?

[The MESMERIC]

come on you can do it
we know you can do it
show them what you got
people are counting on you ;)

Lawyers can already be sanctioned.

[ArsSineArtificio]

Even better, make lawyers who file claims determined frivilous subject to disbarment. To make it "fair," create civil grand juries to assess case merits before it ever sees a court room.

Lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits are already subject to sanctions, up to and including disbarment. For instance, the federal courts have Civil Rule 11, which provides that every attorney who prepares a lawsuit certifies that it's brought in good faith and not merely to harass; if this is violated, the other side can move to impose a fine, which may even be a refund of all the defense expenses.

As for civil grand juries: it's a fundamental precept of our legal system that judges decide points of law, and juries decide points of fact. Whether or not a lawsuit has a reasonable legal basis is, by definition, a legal question, and so a judge would have to decide it. This is essentially what already happens. (The defendant files a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, claiming that the plaintiff doesn't have a legally valid claim.)

This post does not constitute legal advice.

Re:Lawyers can already be sanctioned.

[eric76]

I would think that in many cases, whether a lawsuit is frivilous or not would be as much or more a question of facts than of legal basis.

In a better world, the jury should be able to determine whether or not the plaintiff is ridiculously wasting their time and sanction them itself.

I am constantly reporting spammers

[The MESMERIC]

to my ISPs
to their ISPs
i find out their /whois and redirect any spam traffic to the owner of that domain.

of course i am not stupid - i can discern which emails are for phishing (so wont report citibank etc doh!) ... and I never go resolving spoofed addresses. But find out the company target of the campaign.

I wanna see anyone them even trying to sueing me.
But then again we don't live in a sueing-culture (UK) which free us from cowardly legal intimidations.

RALLY THE FORCES

[kronchev]

That's it, time for mob rule. Someone get the rope, I'll gather torches, we also should get some pitchforks. Gonna lynch us a spammer.

Legal Aid

[jd]

Legal Aid in the UK usually covers people who can't afford to hire a lawyer, and they pay decently from what I hear, so you're not getting the dregs of society. Well, no more than you would by hiring a lawyer anyway. Also, the judge often requires the loser to pay the winner's legal costs, so if there's a strong case, people are more willing to fight it out. The money is more borrowed than spent.

The problem is that the US doesn't generally believe in such fallback systems. Hey, I like the US for a lot of things, but it is very bad at handling people on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

Personally, I'd like to see some sort of arrangement whereby both sides get to spend the same amount, the balance is loaned, and the loser of the case gets to pay the loan back. That way, you can't win a case by bleeding the other side dry and frivolous lawsuits would price themselves out of existence.

The reality is that there is no balance in the US system at present, which means that rich spammers may be able to win cases by filing then deliberately dragging things out to kill the defendent's budget. If the spammers win this case, they're not just going to go after those who complain. They'll be able to target any anti-spam or anti-spyware product (they impact their commercial operations), blackhole lists (defamation) and most of the computer media (slander).

Unless people get together and tough this one out, the spammers could render most of the Internet, and most MS-based PCs, unusable before the year is out.

Re:Legal Aid

[DrSkwid]

UK legal aid doesn't apply to defamation cases, only criminal prosecutions when you are the defendent.

Re:Legal Aid

[DrSkwid]

hmm, that last bit might not be right but the first part is.

Re:Legal Aid

[metlin]

When I worked for a certain National Lab (one that particularly had the habit of getting entangled into losing classified stuff), they did provide the employees with Legal Insurance.

When asked, the guy just said, "For obvious reasons". Makes you wonder what those would be =)

Re:Legal Aid

[julesh]

UK legal aid doesn't apply to defamation cases

Hmmm. Interesting, I didn't realise that. It seems a little unfair if this guy wouldn't be able to claim it were he in the UK, as he would need the funding as much as somebody who, for instance, was getting divorced (who would be eligible for assistance).

On investigation, it certainly seems you may be correct. The following is from the Legal Aid Funding Code Guidance document, available from here.

Paragraph 1 of the Schedule lists areas of law in relation to which no services
may be funded beyond the provision of general information about the law, the
legal system and the availability of legal services.
[...]
other areas of law excluded by paragraph 1 are: [...] defamation or malicious
falsehood; [...] These are excluded because they are not considered to have sufficient priority to justify public funding. [...] In particular, it is not thought justified to spend public
money helping businessmen who fail to insure against the risk of facing legal
costs."

There is a list of exclusions to these exclusions, but the only one that might apply is "proceedings which have a significant wider public interest". It seems unlikely though.

However, it is worth noting that he really doesn't need representation in the UK. Filing an application for summary judgement on the grounds that there is no case to answer is easy enough that anybody with the competence to complain about spam to their ISP could manage it.

Didn't someone try this silliness a while back?

[cecil36]

Anyone remember Bernard Shifman, IT Consultant? He tried this tactic (supposively), but only made a you-know-what out of himself. It's been more than two years since his stupidity became public, but I'm sure that it will be just as funny now as it was on the day it happened.

With you on this one Spamme

[SEO Queen]

I'm with you on this one Spamme, I think the chap has been more than patient with these guys who have been nothing but arrogant and ignorant in spamming some person for two years, I would have done the same thing. If there is any justice in the world, the judge would clearly recognize the innocence of this man rather than condemning him. I can only hope the tables turn on the company suing this guy and they get plastered with a huge fine.

Re:With you on this one Spamme

[DarkKnightRadick]

Here here!

Sorry for the "meetoo!" post, but your comment required it. (:

Why use e-mail

[Tom_Yardley]

For thirty-seven cents, I can get a guy to come to my house, pick up a paper copy of my e-mail and carry it across the country to the person I'm writing to. Any spam can be deleted in less than two seconds. Snail mail rocks!

Not always a good idea

[bluGill]

See a lawyer and accountant for advice that applies to you. However I wouldn't recommend this in general. For $300/year you get some insurance company to roll over and give $1million to anyone who brings a suit against you no matter how frivolous it is. Also, courts can award however much they want, if the court decides you should owe $2million you are on the hook for $1million anyway.

In most states courts cannot take things like your house or retirement plans. With careful spending you can ensure that you have no assets for them to take from you if they do win.

Re:Not always a good idea

[Lost Race]

The insurance company will not roll over and pay a million dollars if they can win the case for less than that. The whole point of a frivolous lawsuit is to bankrupt the defendant with legal costs. You can't do that to an insurance company. If the suit isn't frivolous then the defendant deserves to pay anyway, insurance or no. It was only an extra $300 for the insurance anyway, no big loss compared to that million dollars it saved.

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[griffeymac]

And for pete's sake, don't do it from home or work.

Go to the library. Or the local community college--the one near us has open labs throughout the building.

Fill out the web form and be as pissy as you want. And when Spammers R Us decide to get huffy, they can take up their problem with localcc.edu instead of you. And just exactly where are they going to go from there?

Heck, make up the information you provide, of course. For a required e-mail address you might try "info@atriks.com" or something like that. Just a suggestion...

Why use invisible proxy servers (whatever the heck those are) when you can just go use a publicly available computer to send nasty replies from! Go ahead, grab my IP address!

Giving lawyers a bad name

[penguinoid]

I've heard said, "Not all lawyers are blood sucking bastards. It's just that the 99% who are give the other 1% a bad name."

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[Macgyver7017]

Be careful, if you call a toll free number, they get your number no matter what. If you called them, that might be considered a "buisiness relationship" which MIGHT make it easier/legal for them to telemarket you or sell your number to someone else.

Atriks are known spammer scum

[merc]

In and around November 2003 my inbox was getting slammed really hard by these scumballs. It's no coincidence I see the following in the sendmail access table at the ISP I work at.

# 11/26/03 - spamhaus:Atriks aka Green Horse
sendmails.org REJECT Spam
mailnotice.com REJECT Spam
send-mails.com REJECT Spam
dailyemail.org REJECT Spam
wwwanswers.com REJECT Spam
mailspool.com REJECT Spam
atriks.com REJECT Spamhaus
uxd7.com REJECT Spamhaus
4mx.org REJECT Spamhaus
s9p.net REJECT Spamhaus

At that time I know they also had a SPEWS listing, and they probably still do if they occupy the same network space.

I will drink a cold one in celebration the day these idiots go out of business (which, from what I've observed is the natural evolutionary path for spamhausen).

Side note: Shouldn't sendmail corporation be going after these idiots for infringement?

Next time....

[tcp_len]

first report to us(./) we will shut them down.

The bully...

[lq_x_pl]

Atriks

Where are the ISPs?

[slam smith]

If this guy is legit. I would expect ISPs to line up to pay for his defense. It is in their interest to not let the spammers get a foothold this way.

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[xjerky]

Cool - so then pay phones still have a use after all!

Easy solution...

[lucason]

CSA is of little importance here. The ISP should have the right to expell the SPAMMER on grounds of "End User Agreement" violation, as spamming violates his reasonable use clause.

A question?

[tanveer1979]

Slightly offtopic, but i have a confusion about the system. If somebody sues you, and you do not have money, does it mean that in America you are not allowed to fight the case yourself and you lose by default?

Impossible

[tod_miller]

He made a complaint, it isn't illegal to complaint to an ISP, even if you are LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

If the ISP takes action, based on thier investigation into your claims, then the ISP is liable, EXCEPT the ISP has in thier nice TOS that they can shaft a splintery wooden pike into your rear end and taunt you while dressing you in pink clothes, and you still can't do anything about it. Oh, and they can terminate your service at any time.

So, the spammers had better KY up if they are taking this to court.

Now, like I said, you can lie through your teeth, and it is the ISP's job to say, hey dude, shut up, you are lying, and if you are a customer of thiers, probably pull the plug on you.

So spammers, go to heck!! I should have been a lawyer, but I would have raped the judged eye socket and shit in the jurors seats if they things were looking bad for me.

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[ForestGrump]

as a bonus, they get to pay a little something to the payphone owner.

Grump

American cancer

[cra]

My god, this has to be (another) a text book example of "American cancer". Don't people over there have thing to do but suing each other?!? Seems like suing somebody is the best way to get rich quick, right?

"OMFG, I saw a nipple on TV! Somebody is going to pay! Millions!" People like that should be cooked in acid!

If you trip on the sidewalk and break your ankle, it's your own god damn fault. You should have been watching where you were walking. If you can't stand the sight of a nipple, you should be institutionalised. Everybody has them, and they are not that different. If you cook your dig in the microwave you should be punished for animal cruelty. It's NOT the oven manufacturers fault that you're stupid.

I could probably go on and on and on with examples, but I have other things to do, too.

It just makes me wonder if the Americans really are so stupid as it seems. Warning labels on everything. . . Is nobody over there able to think for themselves!?

The German version

[Lonewolf666]

is:
Loser pays, but there are regulations (BRAGO) on how much the laywers can charge. The fees depend on the amount of money that is at stake in the suit. Overall, the system seems to work better for the small guy than the US system, because even if you lose, the court and lawyer fees are capped. So you won't end up paying for an army of lawyers.
It also helps against the assholes who sue for millions of dollars because they spilled some hot coffee over their lap: the lawyer fees would be too much for them.
There is, however, at least one loophole:
In trademark related suits, the plaintiffs tend to set the monetary value of the lawsuit extremely high and get away with it. As a result, the lawyer fees are extremely high too, and even if you are fairly certain to win, the risk may be too high.

Therefore, I would like to see some more leeway for the judges to award lawyer fees, with the BRAGO as a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule (Maybe that leeway exists and is just not used, IANAL).

Re:The German version

[JohnFluxx]

"It also helps against the assholes who sue for millions of dollars because they spilled some hot coffee over their lap: "

Bah, I'm sick of this being brought up.
Go read snopes or search google on it or something. The woman had a good case.

Re:The German version

[jschrod]

The case was good, but the amount of money was insane.

Re:The German version

[Myrthe]

The jury award was "insane", but the amount originally asked for, $20,000, was quite reasonable.

Besides, it appears the defendant got the high amount after alienating an initially friendly jury; the actual penalty paid was much less than the jury asked for; and most importantly the case successfully put an end to years of similar injuries. Where is the bad here?

link here found on snopes.

Pool money? That wouldn't work.

[bs_02_06_02]

Then the "little guy" would kill the big guys. You'd have millions of stupid little morons running around suing big companies for no reason except to tie up chunks of money.

The truth is, this Stuler person has a right to complain. And the spammer has a right to file a lawsuit. I'm surprised that the ACLU won't step in and defend Stuler for his right to complain.

The worst part is if Stuler didn't keep any of the spam he received. How many people save SPAM for just this type of event? Very few. I delete it. If I got hauled to court, I'd have to depend on Google archives, newsgroup archives, and archives of various abuse channels out there... and getting responses from those sources for court evidence might be kind of tough.

Ideally, I'd like to see the legislators who wrote the CSA show up for court. Make them sit through this just so they see how FUCKING STUPID they were when they wrote the piece of shit.

So...

[Snaller]

You AAL ? :)

Re:So...

[holt_rpi]

Well, NALITPONE (Not a Lawyer in That Part of New England) ;)

Also, I don't know where the case was filed or if that court even has proper jurisdiction... I just threw NH out there because (I think) that's where the company was based. The article didn't say where it was filed. It's possible that if it was filed in another jurisdiction there might be hope for an anti-SLAPP motion.

Great for lawyers

[EmagGeek]

Of course, the only thing this will lead to is the cessation of spam reporting, followed by a change in behavior that will be that spamees sue spammers in lieu of going through current spam reporting channels. This will be great for lawyers.. on both sides...

Of course, isn't everything?

But this is America ?

[TractorBarry]

Surely the correct response (in as much of my understanding of the wacky world of the American legal system) is for him to hire one of your legendary "no win no fee" lawyers and immediately counter sue for untold billions of dollars in damages (I'm sure there's some reason he could do this)

From an outsiders perspective it looks like the American legal "system" (sic) is going to be the death of America.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I love the system

[ramsesvp]

I really love this system! Next thing you know a convicted burgular will sue the state for lost income-out-of-theft while he was in prison.

Re:Ridiculous

[rs79]

...The judge is clearly an incompetent idiot...

Hey, more libel. Cool.

That law is not concerned with your opinion, it is concerned with the facts of the matter.

Re:Atriks website, contact info, privacy policy, e

[rs79]

I called to get their side of the story and ended up in voice mail hell. It took me 3:54 minutes before I gave up. Interestingly, when it transfers you to the operatot you get one Brian Heberston's voicemail.

I wonder how many people actually work there?

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?! no.

[arbitraryaardvark]

1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse. 2. Relating to the administration of penal law. 3. 1. Guilty of crime. 2. Characteristic of a criminal. 4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent. n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime

It seems to me

[phorm]

a) He did the right thing in notifying the ISP
b) The ISP did the right thing in killing the spammers for breach-of-contract


If the ISP *really* wanted to look good, perhaps they could help fund this guy's legal case? Otherwise, do we really want to set a precedent where simply *informing* a company that their contract is being breached is a civil liablity? Sounds like it would be bad for the ISP's and not just the public. Perhaps he should ask them about this...

Re:Well, now what?

[arbitraryaardvark]

Sure! Info war. Collect information about them and post it here. landlord's name. license plate numbers. anything that might ..ah.. help us understand them better.. so we can pray for them... or something. knowledge is power.

a distinction without a difference

[alizard]

therefor it's not a freedom of speech issue

Putting people in reasonable fear of a lawsuit even if the accusation is in fact both true and provable is almost as good as being able to send out one's own jack-booted thugs out to kick down people's doors, given that even if one's accusations are both true and provable, one still has to pay a lawyer and substantial legal fees in order to prove that one is in fact innocent of the charge of libel on the basis that one is telling the truth, no matter how unpleasant a corporation finds this.

Google on "Chilling Effects".

Slashdotted!

[Jstuler]

That massive amount of emails and donations that I got over the last 2 days can only mean one thing - I've been Slashdotted! :)
The interest I have received from Slashdot readers has been tremendous - almost overwhelming.
Unfortunately I can't respond to every email or every donation personally but I'd just like to thank everyone who donated to my legal defense fund, and even those who just sent emails of support. It means a lot, really.
I estimate that I will still have quite a legal bill, but the donations thus far have really helped relieve some of the stress.
Even those very few people who have negative things to say - keep talking, the publicity helps me more than you know :)
Unfortunately, I'm forbidden from discussing the case on the legal advise of my lawyer, so I'll just say thanks!

Thanks

-Jay Stuler
http://spamlawsuit.spamshield.org/

Re:Did you actually read the complaint?! no.

[grouse]

Politician-style sophistry: "Your honor, I didn't mean he was ACTUALLY a criminal or to imply that he had ACTUALLY committed a crime. I just meant that his spamming was a criminal waste of talent that he could have used to improve GNU/Linux!"

Also, irrelevant to the law.