Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
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...
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
If anything, they should sue the ISP, not the individual. Props to the ISP though for listening to the guy.
Sigs are for Terrorists.
Damn, I better take that No Junk Mail sticker off my mailbox. I hear the Post Office has some mean ass lawyers.
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..
I like muppets.
No wonder people are saying to heck with the internet. Spam, virii, worms, spyware, goofy OS problems
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
My personal favorite, the "Atriks Personal Domain Owners with Credit Cards" Database. 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.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
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?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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.
Direct away from face when opening.
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.
Winchester Rifles sues Vestgard, manufacturer of bullet-proof vests and body armour.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
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.
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?
Tech Public Policy stuff
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.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
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.
Don't forget their toll free number:
866-624-7008
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.
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!
I'm a big tall mofo.
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_pagand
http://t3-v-mcnicol.org/"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
From an op-ed on our site dated 19 September 2004
/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.
A recent lawsuit has been filed against Jay Stuler by Brian Haberstroh
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.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
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.