Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million

fronck writes "Self-declared anti-spammer Mark Mumma, a web hosting and email service provider, has apparently been sued for just under $4 million by cruise.com and their parent company Omega World Travel after they were ordered to stop sending him emails and comply with Oklahoma's CAN-SPAM act. Mumma intends to see the trial through court and meanwhile the spam continues unabated. More insight available at Ars Technica."

Comments

Counter Suit

[Anonymous Coward]

As the spammers have clearly identified themselves and their victim should have logs clearly showing their abuse he should counter sue them.

They have kindly set the level for the quantum of damages.

Re:Counter Suit

[storm916]

Personally, I Fail to see the point... It should not even have to go to court. Someone complained about some spam, the spammers were subsequintly given a c& d order. So what? What's this? They don't like it?? Well, that's just too stinking bad. They shouldn't abuse the email system.

Wow, just wow.

[Qzukk]

The judge will hopefully smack this one down. If the company doesn't like the CAN-SPAM act, they should appeal whatever case they lost against it, not go and sue the guy who reported them to the cops.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the judge smacked down the frivolous SCO lawsuit?

Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

Re:Wow, just wow.

[justforaday]

Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

Oreo's can make you fat?!? :-o

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

"suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?"

What?!?! All this time I just thought I had big bones.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Coolfish]

Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

The lawsuit was about how Oreo cookies did not disclose that they contain trans fatty acids (for which the safe level of consumption is 0 grams per day. Each Oreo cookie used to contain 1 gram of trans fat). This is like suing a company that fails to disclose that they are using a poison to hold the cookie together (which what hydrogenated fats should be, and practically have been, classified as). (disclaimer: you should read up on trans fats. not all trans fats are man made, artificial, or necessarily unhealthy.)

Re:Wow, just wow.

[jebell]

I think the spammers made a big mistake filing it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges in that particular district are known for not taking crap from attorneys. In fact, the trial docket is known as the "rocket docket." No continuances will be granted without a very good reason and the litigants are stuck with a very strict schedule. The motion to dismiss has a better shot at success there than a number of other federal courts.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the people behind the Oreo suit. Yes, what you're describing is correct, they were suing over transfatty acids. But they never expected to win the suit, it was merely a publicity stunt designed to get media attention in order to tell the public that transfatty acids are bad.

There are no FDA regulations that say you have to show the amount of transfatty acids, unlike everything else you see in the package.

So, yes, they fully expected the suit to be smacked down.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[operagost]

You have a flair for the dramatic, but the FDA decided last year that the safe level was less than 2g per day in a 2000 kcal diet. That's more than zero.

http://www.healthcastle.com/trans.shtml

I might also note that the FDA does not require that trans-fatty acids be listed explicitly on the nutrition facts label. It does require that they be properly counted, so if you look at the label and see this:

3g total fat
1g unsaturated
1g saturated

then the trans-fatty is the leftover amount, 1g.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[phorm]

Mumma provided Omega World Travel with a valid, lawful opt out request as provided for by 5[a(3)(A)(i) of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 on Jan. 1

SCO was, in fact, not so frivilous in the eyes of the court. As it went on it definately started to reek of bullshit, but there was a possibility nearer the start that at least some for claims were true. In addition, due to the technical an particular natures of the claims at hand, most judges wouldn't be in a position to easily dismiss them.

As for Oreo cookies, well it's a stupid claim however you see smokers winning against tobacco companies (yes, I know oreo doesn't contain nicotime).


In this case, however, somebody is being sued for following and using the law. To allow a lawsuit based on this would be a very bad precedent. If the spammer (or indeed anyone) has a problem with the law itself, he should attack the law not the company applying it.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[StalinsNotDead]

"suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?"

What?!?! All this time I just thought I had big bones.

You are just big-boned. Oreos are unusually high in Calcium.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[imurchie]

What are reported as "calories" on food packages are actually kcal.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[gstoddart]

Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

Oreo's can make you fat?!? :-o

Obviously not. The lawsuit was dismissed. Sheesh. =)

Re:Wow, just wow.

[eaolson]

I'm not sure what the rules and definitions are for food labeling, but all trans fats are unsaturated, and so they may be included in the "unsaturated fat" part of the label.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Mycroft999]

Yes. Trans Fats are bad

However, they have been used for decades and are quite pervasive in the food supply at this point. To single one company out to punish is absurd. Additionally, they were disclosed. Right on the package. Right were the consumer's rights people lobbied for them to be disclosed.

In the ingredients list.

Lets stop with the bleeding heart protect the people from their own stupidity nonsense already. Good information about trans-fatty acids might not have been as visible as it needed to be, but anyone concerned about the quality of the food they eat had all the tools they needed to make good decisions.

What more do you want? Do you want the food industry to cover the packaging of less healthy food choices in thorny proturbances, the sharpness of which increases in direct relation to the lack of nutritional value? How about some personal responsibility for a change!

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Firethorn]

And given how much room nutrition information and ingredient lists already taken up, if we start listing more stuff and warnings, how long before they can't sell snickers bars because the nutrition information takes up the whole wrapper? Or we start needing a microfilm reader for it?

Remember when margarine was better for you, then you went back to butter being better(though still bad)?

Whats the rest of the story?

[Wanderer1]

I find it hard to believe that there isn't another side to this tale.

That said, if the company *IS* prosecuting on those grounds, an out of court settlement involving some guys named Vinny is probably at least as effective.

W

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[nodwick]

From TFA:

A key issue in the matter is the supposed opt-in nature of the list in question. Mumma's argument is that he never opted-in, so he shouldn't have to opt-out. Furthermore, he holds that opting-out only increases the chance of receiving more spam. This makes Mumma appear somewhat belligerent, and it doesn't help that his demands for a settlement for over $6,000 were accompanied by veiled threats regarding Google "caching" his complaint page. Furthermore, the fact that his site also suggested "setting a trap" to nail spammers (PDF of page at the time) make him looks lawsuit happy, although it isn't clear that this means anything other than documenting one's moves closely.

Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight. The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[nine-times]

The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...

I believe at least part of the problem (though I may be wrong in this case) is that the spammers who send the advertising and the people who are selling the product are two different companies. In a sense, the spammers have no financial interest in you actually buying the product, other than in that it maintains the image of spam as an effective advertising medium.

Or even when they are the same company, it seems that companies who advertise through spam aren't relying on the inherent good-quality of their product for sales.

So when it comes to legal action, the spammers aren't so worried about making the product look bad, or even making spam look bad (after all, it already looks about as bad as it's going to). What they're more worried about is their right to continue spamming.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight

I once recieved an abusive letter (Pinned under the windsheild wiper of my car) from another tenant in the same building where had just moved in. They were complaining that I was parkign in a spot that they had rights to and were paying for and which happened to be the best spot available. I returned a very polite letter that I made sure was ice cold and factual outlining that the parking spaces were numbered as where the apartments and that according to my rental agreement this parking spot Nr. X belongded to my aparment Nr. X and that I was in fact paying for it. There were no insults, no abuse and no gloating in the letter, I just explained that they were in fact squattin on my parking spot, not the other way around. I never heard from them again. The the moral of the story is that the biggest mistake you can make is to get carried away in an Oh, goody, I'm in the right... Now lets REALLY chew them out! type frenzy. Alot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[B3ryllium]

A lot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

It's absolutely astounding, the sheer number of people who don't realize that.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[hawk]

There's an art to writing lawyerly letters.

You politely explain exactly what you may do to them if they don't do what you politely ask :)

Actually, they're kind of fun--abut the only part of active practice that I miss . . .

Also, whether it's fair or not, when you're right and the other guy is wrong but stubborn, the letterhead is worth what you pay for it--it tends to get better results (particularly if what you're asking is just "leave me alone") than if you had written the same exactt words yourself . . .

hawk, esq.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[wayne]

From TFA:

[paraphrasing]

The anti-spammer being sued (Mumma):

• will not opt out of something he didn't opt into.
• demands money for a settlement, even though the amount is far less than the law allows.
• notes that info about this case will not just disappear (google cache, etc).
• outlines ways of catching spammers by creating effective traps that document the details rather than "just hitting delete".

Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight.

Why does any of this make Mumma "look a bit less like a white night"?

This is exactly what these anti-spam laws were intended to do. Get individual people and companies to enforce the law instead of making the police/government enforce the law. The penalties allowed in the law are high enough to make it worth people's time to fight the spammers.

Forcing people to opt-out is a horrible idea because it does not scale. You can not require everyone to opt-out of every company in the US, let alone the world. Worse, spammers would just create a new "company" every time you opt-out of another one.

We want more people suing spammers, of all sorts. We want more people acting like Mumma.

The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. [...] Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? [...]

The point the spammer is trying to make is not that they have the right to send Mumma spam, but that they have the right to send everyone spam. If they concede this case to Mumma, they open themselves up to everyone they have spammed to drop by and ask to pay either the fine or to settle. They can't afford to pay the penalties for what they are doing, and if they stop spamming, they would have to compete against legitimate travel agents.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[Rinikusu]

While they may be two different companies, many spammers also get a commision on sales generated by the spam they send out. That's how (and why) many spammers don't really care that 10 million people hate their spam, because 10,000 people bought the product which generated, say, $10/sale (I've heard of commisions in the hundreds of dollars/sale). So, you pissed off 10 million people. You made $100k. You also have 5 or 6 other spamvertisments ready to go with similar commisions.

For several million a year, I'd tell 100 million people to fuck off, too, if it were legal. :)

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[B3ryllium]

You sound like someone who would enjoy the story of my recent legal battle (though it didn't take place in the courts - it was an employment standards dispute). Sadly, I haven't had a chance to sift through the reams of documents to come out with a summary of the whole thing.

Sufficeth to say, I kept my cool, and the other party (a person/company who never paid me for some work I did) did not. And then he got a law firm on his side, and *still* lost.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[jxs2151]

Cool, you've got an intimidating letterhead...and the enmity of an entire society. Sleep well?

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[fermion]

Very seldom is the victim and aggressor well defined Many years ago major companies realized this, realized that they often had much more money and legal expertise than the average person, and started filing frivolous lawsuits against people they did not like, not for the purpose of winning, but just to be annoying.

One of the most famous of these was McDonalds. Though they berate those that would waste the courts time on suing for spilt coffee, they caused one of the longest trails in Britain history. Some protesters were saying the food was non-nutritional. McDonalds sued. McDonals defense. Anything could be a nutritional part of a balanced diet. McDonalds lost. Britain lost. The peoples right to speak freely lost. And, as conservatives are so fond of saying, the lawyers won.

And yet we do nothing to limit the ability of companies to launch these frivolous suites, and allow them to waste everyone times.

Surely the victim in this case is not 100% in the right, and the company is not 100% in the wrong. But this suit is as frivolous as they come.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: IANAL, or in any way affiliated with one.

That said, I would like to point out that $lawyer!=$evil over the entire domain of [$lawyer]. There are in fact lawyers out there that help ordinary citizens wade thru the complexities of whichever law the citizen happens to be ensnared in. This is often a Good Deed, as it is fairly easy for a righteous citizen to be declared non-righteous by the law based on righteous citizen's failure to cross all the Is and dot all the Ts, which a decent lawyer will help you do.

Having an intimidating letterhead is simply a tool of the trade, it does not indicate HOW the tool is used.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[gstoddart]

A lot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

It's absolutely astounding, the sheer number of people who don't realize that.

Yeah, pretty much everyone on Slashdot. :-P

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[hawk]

You don't quite get it, do you?

These most often come into play when the little guy is being mistreated by someone with more resources. His own claims get ignored, but a lawyer changes the calculus . . .

hawk

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[SvnLyrBrto]

Well, when some prick decides to falsely accuse you of some wrongdoing that you... well... haven't DONE; I think it's a perfectly natural reaction to want to rip the SOB a new A-hole as viciously as possible.

To what degree you give in to that temptation, that's another story. But it's clear, that once the other party starts the lying, they deserve not the slightest sympathy for anything bad that happens to them.

In the parent's case, I would have made damn well sure that I WAS in the right, that the parking space was mine, and told the SOB go go fuck himself. Then, if I ever found his car there, I'd have it towed.

Oh.... did I mention that that IS, in fact, my #1 pet peeve of all time, the surefire way to get me to loathe and resent you forever.... to attempt to blame me fore a wrong I didn't do?

cya,
john

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[TheViewFromTheGround]

From TFA:

Furthermore, the fact that his site also suggested "setting a trap" to nail spammers (PDF of page at the time) make him looks lawsuit happy...

And from TFR:

Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight.

Not only is it not illegal, it's quite common practice to proactively solicit the behavior you wish to sue over. In some cases, this is fradulent, unethical, deceptive, etc.

But in many cases, this is worthwhile and ethical behavior. Many lawsuits against various sorts of abusers are thrown out because their procedural and evidenciary ducks aren't in a row, or the behavior isn't particularly egregious. If the spammers (or brutal cops or corrupt city government, in the cases I work on) really are what you say they are, this isn't unethical baiting or deception. They'll do the nasty things they do whether or not you exist. The difference is that you open yourself up for them to do it to you or in front of you and make sure you document it all painstakingly.

Our society is a little too lawsuit happy, but I don't think this besmirches Mr. Mumma in the least.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[ergo98]

I once recieved an abusive letter (Pinned under the windsheild wiper of my car) from another tenant in the same building where had just moved in

Interesting. This wasn't in London, Ontario, was it? My wife and I had an experience several years back where someone moved in and immediately started parking in the spot that was numbered the same as their apartment. The problem was that the parking spot numbering had absolutely nothing to do with the apartment number (the number system was sequential for the parking spots, starting at 1, whereas the apartments started at 100, having only 12 or so instances in each 100. Not to mention the possibility of people having no car, or multiple cars).

My wife left the culprit a brief note indicating that spots were assigned, and they should speak with the super about getting an assigned spot. The next day we found some raving, several pages long diatribe that included threats of physical confrontation, claiming that they were backed up by the super.

Of course we kept parking in the spot, and the moron never said another thing. Apparently they eventually did take their case to the super and everything went quiet.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[glesga_kiss]

Supposing in some bizarro world they win

You mean the US legal system? ;-)

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[Trillan]

Indeed. Google search for Mark Mumma; it seems he's been on the other side of the fence in the past.

The first rule of spam, of course, is: spammers lie.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[geminidomino]

it's quite common practice to proactively solicit the behavior you wish to sue over.

Of course, anyone not living under a rock for the past five years knows that "proactively soliciting spam" is also known as "having an email address."

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[jxs2151]

I'd say I get it just fine. There are 1 million lawyers in America, the other 280 million of us are rather sick of the whole lot of you, regardless of whether you justify your imtimidation as being for "the little guy."

Perhaps it is the arrogance that is evident when you tell people "You don't quite get it, do you?"

Again, how does it feel to have some many people think of you as slime?

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[jxs2151]

I would say that utilizing an intimidating letterhead disqualifies a lawyer from being classified as a "good guy" regardless of his intentions. An individual can change the world with his actions, using the same methods as the scum while claiming to be a "good lawyer" will not change the world, it will merely perpetuate the practice of questionable behavior.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[Nf1nk]

however the ratio of ($lawyer!=$Evil)/($Lawyer==$Evil) 1 to a degree that aproaches 0. At this point the upper half of this ratio is so small that if $net_good= -dead($lawyer!=$Evil)+dead($Lawyer==$Evil)~=dead($ Lawyer==$Evil)
So I say kill em all and let god sort em out.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Of course you dealt with the issue the way most Canadians deal with issues.

Unfortuneately too many out there prefer to take the American approach that has come to drive most of the world crazy.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[hawk]

From someone this ignorant, not at all.

And just in case someone falls for your drivel, which requires that you go through life with blinders, let's make the situration I'm talking about clear:

Jack is being harassed by Bigco over a phony debt. Jack signed a contract for a monthly service, with clear provisions to get out. Jack sent the notice required, but Bigco ignored him, and is demanding that he continue paying or it will ruin his credit and sue him. Bigco ignores all of Jack's letters.

A lawyer then writes a letter for Jack.

9 times out of 10, Bigco backs down at this point.

How you hold that against the lawyer is beyond comprehension to reasonable people.

And quite frankly, having people as ignorant and bigotted as you are think of me as "slime" (irregardless of the fact that I haven't practiced for over ten years) bothers me about about as much as skinheads who call me a "racial traitor."

hawk, esq.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[hawk]

The mere *fact* that it is on a lawyer's letterhead causes it to be takene more seriously than if it wasn't. It's *exactly* the same phenomenon as when you punch a bully back.

And why you think that a lawyer sending a letter telling someone to back off and cease their illegal behavior is "questionable behavior" is, once again, beyond what reasonable people can understand.

hawk, esq.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[jxs2151]

I figure it wouldn't take you long to drop down to the ad hominem. Thank you for saving me the time of proving my point. You did it so much better than I ever could have.

Have a nice day.

Re:Whats the rest of the story?

[jxs2151]

It is intimidation regardless of the motive and therefore bad.

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

In Soviet Russia

[PoopJuggler]

Spammers sue you!

What a great ad!

[`Sean]

Wow. This /. article is a pretty good ad for cruise.com. ;)

Re:What a great ad!

[strider44]

must be an "any publicity is good publicity" because all it's telling me is to boycott cruise.com, and there are a lot of fellow slashdotters who would feel the same.

Re:What a great ad!

[`Sean]

Precisely. Traffic is traffic. Chances are that some /. reader will buy something from cruise.com by the end of the day even if the majority of us are taking the side of the anti-spammer.

Re:What a great ad!

[Meagermanx]

Actually, right now there are probably Cruise lawyers going "Hey, wait a second! This nerd web page is verbally assaulting us! Quick, someone get these usernames down! Fire up the lawyers!!"

Re:What a great ad!

[lowrydr310]

Forget about cruise.com: http://www.atlantisevents.com/

Re:What a great ad!

[DigitumDei]

And you thought they made their money from spam...

Re:What a great ad!

[Cat_Byte]

You mean with a link we can click on easily? Oh the humanity! Don't click here!

Re:What a great ad!

[porcupine8]

Yes - I am currently planning a honeymoon either on a cruise or at an all-inclusive, and now I know one site NOT to visit.

Re:What a great ad!

[drsquare]

The effect from slashdot readers will be completely negligable. The number of people who will read this article will number in the thousands. Of those, perhaps a few hundred would remember the name of the website in question, and why they should be boycotted. On the other hand, the number of people drive to the site by the publicity of this case would probably number in the millions.

Re:What a great ad!

[kyojin the clown]

hee hee hee

http://www.cruise.com/staff/index.html

Scoot down through this bunch and find Bruce - he looks fightening like Gareth from 'The Office'

Re:What a great ad!

[porcupine8]

It's only defamation if it's untrue, yes? If I told someone who'd been living in a cave for the past year or two that Martha Stewart was a convicted criminal, and that lowered their opinion of her, she couldn't sue me for defamation.

Standard SLAPP suit

[bigtallmofo]

The courts are very familiar with SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Many states are adopting Anti-SLAPP legislation that should make this easy to get dismissed and as TFA suggests impose sanctions against the plaintiff.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[Joffrey]

As far as I can tell, though, this isn't a SLAPP suit. It seems to be a pre-emptive filing to gain "home court" advantage.

Firstly, while I wholeheartedly condemn spam and spammers, we should note that the "article" we all read was actually a press release by one party in litigation. There are probably some additional facts we don't know.

For example, it appears that Mummers sues many spammers in his home jurisdiction (OK) because of the favorable laws there, and makes a tidy profit off of his side business of suing spammers. While the spammer in question is no doubt sleazy, it seems that they knew a lawsuit was almost certainly coming in Oklahoma, so they pre-emptively filed it in Virginia (their home turf) so as to make it easier to litigate.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[nenolod]

That's irrelevant. The fact that the individuals violated Oklahoma's anti spam law, means that they are liable for that, and that case would still be litigated in Oklahoma.

This lawsuit is more intended to make the owners of cruise.com appear to be victimized, that's all there is to it. It's a fairly common move in litigation of this nature, and it rarely works out in the spammer's favour. Usually these things get dismissed from court.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[SpammersAreScum]

Uh, what? They think filing in Virginia is going to help them? Last I checked, Virginia still had a law on the books criminalizing spamming. Not that it seems to get used much...

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[jhylkema]

You beat me to it! Damn you! :)

Babs got slapped back under California's anti-SLAPP statute. After losing her $50 million lawsuit, she had to fork over north of a hundred large for attorney's fees after some guy had the temerity to post an aerial photograph of her palatial mansion that would make Ken Lay jealous. Her attorney's name - I'm not making this up - was John Gatti.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[OmniGeek]

Well, as one who puts up with spam-fax 'cause we can't use anonymous call blocking, and who deletes lotsa spam from my inbox just to FIND my mail, I'm actually glad someone has found a way to profit from spam at the expense of the spammers.

Even if Mr. Mummers does engage in suing spammers on a regular basis, and even if he makes a tidy living from it, this doesn't mean his suit is without merit. Unless he's abusing the law or the system (impossible for us to know without all the facts on hand), more power to him...

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[Joffrey]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, when you start to play the litigation game, you have to be prepared for the possibility that the other side will fight back. If you make a lot of threats of litigation, expecting everyone to just cave and give you a few grand to "go away," you have to expect someone (even someone who is clearly "in the wrong") to fight back.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[Joffrey]

Actually, the jurisdictional issues in this type of case have not been settled conclusively yet.

Mumma claims that there's no possible way Virginia would have jurisdiction over this dispute, but (and this is a big "but") if the trademark and/or defamation claims have any merit whatsoever (and we have no idea what the underlying facts are, so this is just a hypothetical), then arguably the Virginia courts do have jurisdiction over those claims, as that is "where the harm occurred." There are several other arguments favoring jurisdiction in Virginia, such as the litigation threats, etc.

Also, you may very well be correct that the OK anti-spam law will apply, but there is nothing preventing the federal court in VA from also settling that as a permissive counterclaim to the TM/defamation action.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[soft_guy]

Sometimes these things are handled in one jurisdiction under the laws of another jurisdiction. Example: A contract dispute that is ruled upon in California, but using Delaware's contract law.

This could be filed in Virginia, but use Oklahoma's spam laws.

Re:Standard SLAPP suit

[arbitraryaardvark]

Spam, as much as we hate it, is public participation. The defendant threatened to sue the [probably spammers]. That was a threat of a SLAPP suit. They called him on it.
We are now in the arena of dueling lawyers, which becomes a matter of who has deeper pockets, who can grind the other down over years. I think the odds favor the spammers, even given the ineptness of the current counsel. I could be wrong - the brief in support of the motion to dismiss wasn't posted on the site I looked at,and would be a good clue as to the quality of defendant's counsel.
But a strong opening isn't the same as being able to keep it up for years.

You've missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

They sue people to get them to give up. A lot of people don't have the time, money and/or will to fight someone in court, so they say "Sorry!" and go away.

Re:You've missed the point

[lowrydr310]

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

Re:You've missed the point

[mooingyak]

This might be a case where that's possible. In order for that to happen (in the US), a judge needs to rule that a suit is frivolous, meaning that it's so obviously bogus that the Plaintiff should not have even considered filing it.

Not a lawyer, blah blah blah blah ham sandwich.

Re:You've missed the point

[millennial]

I believe you've missed the point, actually.
The plaintiff in this suit is suing because the defendant reported the plaintiff's violation of the law.

They have no case. This is like any of us college file sharers suing our schools because they reported our copyright violations to the government. It's a bunch of tripe, really - companies who violate the law should not be able to sue the people who report the violations!

Re:You've missed the point

[CarrionBird]

It doesn't matter if they have a case, the parents point was that most people cannot afford to defend themselves in civil court.

Re:You've missed the point

[millennial]

True, but most people can afford to be their own lawyer and say that a case should be thrown out because it is groundless...

Re:You've missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the U.S. - it is however always like that in most European countries.

Re:You've missed the point

[AmericanInKiev]

To Make Matters Worse -

I offered a reward for street spam - and when some streetspam was collected - I was promptly arrested on a "Morality Complaint Law" dated 1885.

(Injuring Moral Advertisements) NC.

Go Figure - the spammer will show up in court and testify that he was spamming the neighborhood with plasti-crap signs - on public property!

AIK

Re:You've missed the point

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice from the web, get your head checked.

I'm going to make a few assumptions here:
1) That the Defendand doe indeed have no significant contacts to the state in which the suit was filed.
2) That trademark infringement has similar rules to copyright infringement, which require the action to be brought in a district in which the defendant "can be found."
3) That the usage of the spammer's trademarks are *clearly* and *indisputably* within the realm of fair use and satire.

If all of these apply, it is hard to fathom a good-faith basis for an attorney to have believed that an action should have been justified.

With that conclusion, the filing would be in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and counsel for the plaintiff would be subject to sanctions, including court costs.

Furthermore, in most states, sanctions in excess of $1,000 or so (except for discovery sanctions) must be reported to the state bar for disciplinary purposes.

Additionally, the filing of a complaint with no good faith basis is a violation of ethical rules, and subject to discipline. Assuming that it is the attorney's first offense, I'd be surprised if it results in disbarment or even suspension; more likely a reprimand or private cautionary letter.

hawk, esq.

Re:You've missed the point

[Zeinfeld]

The plaintiff in this suit is suing because the defendant reported the plaintiff's violation of the law. They have no case.

Possibly, possibly not. Wouldn't it be interesting to get the cruise.com side of the story? It would also be interesting to read the complaint, the links do not work for me.

Omega is a very large travel agency. There are two possible explanations for what is going on. Either the guy is a jerk or the Omega legal department are jerks, (or possibly both)

It certainly seems to be an unusual tactic for a large company to do this sort of thing.

The context that appears to be missed here is that Mummers makes money by bringing lawsuits against spammers. He had threatened a lawsuit himself.

It is not strange or unusual for a company that is threatened with a lawsuit to do some investigation of the person threatening the suit and then bring a pre-emptive suit against them.

Not all the people who bring anti-spam cases are whiter than white. some of the stuff that went on in Utah after their anti-spam law was passed was borderline criminal.

Re:You've missed the point

[adrianbaugh]

It looks like they picked the wrong person, then: MummaGraphics has already turned its attention to suing spammers and is so far undefeated in court. I suspect a countersuit, if appropriate, is not too far away.

Re:You've missed the point

[pete6677]

Since the case for a countersuit is so strong, my guess is that some attorney would agree to file a suit on contengency, and cover the defense in the original case in exchange for a higher cut from the countersuit. So even if the spammee were to give the lawyer 75% of what gets recovered in the countersuit, at least they wouldn't lose anything. As many posters have pointed out, the only reason the suit is being filed is to try to scare people away from reporting spam. Once a spammer is shut down through a countersuit and some case law is established regarding spammers suing victims, these suits will all but go away since it will be trivially easy to get a motion for summary judgement. Besides, even a spammer won't want to get his ass handed to him by a jury, so they'll settle once they see that the victim isn't going away.

Re:You've missed the point

[imurchie]

If you get your legal advice from the web, get your head checked.

do you have any recommendations of websites for that?

Re:You've missed the point

[rainman_bc]

IMO it's not that strong of a case for a countersuit. Mumma didn't act in good faith, and refused to provide his email address, but rather provide a list from www.optoutbydomain.com and said his email address was on that list.

I actually think Mumma is in the wrong here, and that single fact will break him. I think the request that Mumma made was in fact unreasonable.

cruise.com should walk away unscathed.

Re:You've missed the point

[ClubStew]

A lot of people don't have the time, money and/or will to fight someone in court...

There's definitely something wrong when only the wealthy can decent (or any) representation for justice.

I hope this case is seen as frivolous and the defendant should be able to have court costs paid by the plaintiff.

Re:You've missed the point

[xilet]

What criminal style, unbaised, lawsuits being brought forth from Utah, we have never heard of anything like that before...

Re:You've missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get your medical advice from the web, get ready to sue someone.

Re:You've missed the point

[networkBoy]

That's the same thing I facing with my gripe site.
I plan on seing it through as well.

The very interesting thing about this spam case is that it looks to be the same kind of suit by which a theif who breaks into your house and subsequently breaks his back when he trips on something and falls down the stairs can sue you for not maintaining a safe environment as a homeowner.

This is not the best example, but it is a good example of a stupis suit that shouldn't exist.
-nB

Re:You've missed the point

[bbuR_bbuB]

... And most people would know how to file all the right papers? Most people know the right words to say? It's not quite so easy as 'being your own lawyer'. If you act as your own lawyer in a large case like this, you're most likely going to be laughed out of court. It's like having a 5 year old kid playing cards against an adult -- the big guys know how to play, they know how to cheat, and they definately have more resources available to ensure that they'll win. So yeah, go ahead and represent yourself. I'll be laughing my ass off at you on CourtTV.

Re:You've missed the point

[Romeozulu]

A friend of mine decided to defend herself against a silly lawsuit once, and she had a hell of a time getting all the paperwork correct and lost on several procedural grounds, allowing the other party to get an injunction and seize her house. I kid you not. The judge (who felt really bad, I could tell) had no choice.

She eventually got a lawyer and in one court hearing everything was fixed, but it cost her close to $10,000 in the end to get her house back. The original lawsuit was dismissed.

Unless it's traffic court, don't defend yourself.

Re:You've missed the point

[jessecurry]

The very interesting thing about this spam case is that it looks to be the same kind of suit by which a theif who breaks into your house and subsequently breaks his back when he trips on something and falls down the stairs can sue you for not maintaining a safe environment as a homeowner.

Although I agree that a thief being able to sue you when getting insured at your house is ridiculous, I did want to point out that an unsafe environment includes things such as empty swimming pools without a barrier around them, but not something like toys on the floor.

Re:You've missed the point

[Firethorn]

In some states, at least, they have anti-SLAPP laws that give profiles for counter-suits or even criminal penalties for trying to use the courts to shut up free speech.

It might cost $100 to file a SLAPP lawsuit, but when you're suddenly looking at a $100,000 fine for doing so, or a few years in prison, you have to be alot more carefull.

Re:You've missed the point

[nospam007]

>Unless it's traffic court, don't defend yourself.

---

Old US proverb:

People representing themselves have an idiot as client.

Re:You've missed the point

[millennial]

Almost??

Re:You've missed the point

[Firethorn]

I hate cases of "loosing on procedural grounds". The judge should have the power to "fix things". Heck, it should indicate that the system is too complex.

Re:You've missed the point

[arbitraryaardvark]

I challenge your assumptions 1 and 3.
1) It looks like the guy ran a web page that solicited business from virginia and nationally.
They at least could get discovery on how many virginia customers he has.
2) I don't know about so I withhold comment.
3) Isn't fair use a defense, which must be pled?
Fair use is iffy, even for specialists, so there's almost never a clear and indusputable fair use situation. Is it fair use in this case, based on what little I know about the facts? Probably. Is it so clear as to justify sanctions? No, not at all.
4) To avoid sanctions and dismissal, they only need one arguably valid claim, and they have outlined several approaches.
If sanctions were awarded for misuse of apostrophe's and, commas, these guys would be hit hard. The complaint was unproofread hackwork.
If the guy wins his jurisdictional dismissal, the suit can be refiled where he lives.
The most interesting legal aspect I saw in the case was the claim that CAN-spam preempts state anti-spam laws. I wonder how that will shake out if this case goes further.

Re:You've missed the point

[JuggleGeek]

Mumma didn't act in good faith, and refused to provide his email address, but rather provide a list from www.optoutbydomain.com and said his email address was on that list.

That may be the case, but I can't find any information about it. Where do you come across this info?

Re:You've missed the point

[hawk]

>I challenge your assumptions 1 and 3.

That's why they're assumptions, not assertions :)
(In fact, I'd be dangerously close to practicing Virginia law if I didn't do it this way!)

However:

3) Isn't fair use a defense, which must be pled?

Yes, but if a defense is clearly applicable, sanctions can still follow.

hawk, esq.

Re:You've missed the point

[pete6677]

It doesn't sound like Mumma did anything that would really give them grounds to sue him. Even if he reported them for spamming, it sounds like they were in fact spamming him. Let's consider another fact as well: juries will NOT sympathise with spammers. Unless Mumma shot up the spammer's building or something like that, nobody will determine he owes money for being a spam victim. The average person will not be impressed with the spammer's lawyer's abilities to use legal technicalities to spin the case in favor of his client.

Re:You've missed the point

[rainman_bc]

I followed a link to Mumma's "begging for money" site somewhere else in this thread. It's been reposted a couple times. The transcript of the phone conversations is in there.

Personally I think it'll break his case.

I honestly think both will walk away unscathed.

Then again if they get a judge who's grandkid had just approached them asking about v1agra or pen15 enlargement...

Re:You've missed the point

[antic]

Once you've been modded "Funny", the "Not a lawyer" designation isn't really necessary.

I think you were presenting a really professional point until that ham sandwich though!

Re:You've missed the point

[geminidomino]

Wow, this is one of the few places Florida gets it right. Street Spam is considered litter here, and they've established you can't be liable for cleaning up litter.

Re:You've missed the point

[mooingyak]

Sometimes I choose not to take myself too seriously. More to the point, law isn't my realm of expertise and I wanted to subtly emphasize that.

Besides, one the sibling post to my original both made the point better and had the benefit of being written by someone who actually read the article :)

Thanks for the encouragement though.

Also, how come one informative + one funny == funny?

I think this is my first 3-mod. I always get 0, 2 or 5. The fives always surprise me.

Re:You've missed the point

[blippy]

> Assuming that it is the attorney's first offense, I'd be surprised if it results in disbarment or even suspension; more likely a reprimand or private cautionary letter.

IANAL, but I did a short course in law once (I'm from England). I can't remember what the case was, but it was from very old colonial days.

Anyway, it was the case where 2 highwaymen fell out with each other, and petitioned the court to resolve a dispute about how their booty should be shared.

Events didn't turn out quite to their liking, however, as it resulted in them both being hanged, and the lawyer being deported to Australia.

Now that's the way to cut through all the crap!

Re:You've missed the point

[AmericanInKiev]

That's right

Florida is a leader in visual pollution

probably because tourism is such a large component of its economy -- or is it the other way around?

AIK

Re:You've missed the point

[MemoryAid]

If you get your legal advice from the web, get your head checked.

do you have any recommendations of websites for that?

I prefer Zombo.com for that type of thing. Actually, it's a better source for treatment than for diagnosis, but you may disagree.

Re:You've missed the point

[falconwolf]

If you get your medical advice from the web, get ready to sue someone.

Yea, if you get that medical advice from the web without checking out the validity of the advice and things go wrong sue yourself, for stupity.

Falcon

Re:You've missed the point

[falconwolf]

Florida is a leader in visual pollution

probably because tourism is such a large component of its economy -- or is it the other way around?

From my own experience Floridians typically don't litter much if at all, transplants, snowbirds, and tourists are the ones usually caught littering. Though I currently live in Minneasota (been here 6 1/2 years) as far as being from a state or region I consider myself a Floridian, I lived there for more than 30 years. Growing up there friends of mine and I had this saying, "You can tell the difference between a true Floridian and a transplant when a hurricane comes along, while the Floridian says it's tyme to batten down the hatchs tranplants throw thier hands and arms in the air and scream 'let's get out of here'."

Falcon

Re:You've missed the point

[AmericanInKiev]

I noticed the language was ambiguous.

As a leader - i mean they have been the first to clear the way for private persons to removve visual litter (Advertising devices).

AIK

I like stupid criminals

[grasshoppa]

It makes it all that much easier to find them, and a whole hell of a lot more enjoyable to fuck them up.

Free Mumma!

[Filmwatcher888]

Or at least charge him less, geez.

Re:Hmm

[Anita Coney]

If you read the article, or even the original posting, he's an anti-spammer. He has a website which talks about spam and how to avoid it. The spam industry doesn't like it. So they are suing him.

Slashdot should hire the Ars people

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually write real summaries that explain things. It's quite amazing compared to what we get here at Slashdot. Just go read their story and compare.

Re:Slashdot should hire the Ars people

[jthayden]

They actually write real summaries that explain things.

That's because over at ARS, they don't have to post the story three different times.

America, land of the free...lawsuit

[doublebackslash]

I LOVE living in a place that treats every lawsuit as if the defendant is guilty. For example, if i sue you over the rights to your property, even if I don't have ANY proof, I can prevent you from selling your home for as long as I can keep appealing the courts (hopefully) sane decision. Just think about what would happen if you were about to move and I did that. What if you were a corporation moving out of a factory building. The upkeep, the security risk, the TCO of the place could sink you if I kept you in court long enough. I hate that this country allows that sort of BS.

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[madaxe42]

Dude, that's so untrue - america is the land of the free, that kind of thing doesn't happen in real life, just in hypothetical situations - it's like worrying about government monitoring, it's totally cool and safe, i'm sure they'll never abuse it, you just need to be more trusting!

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[Clowning]

Imagine the likelihood of surviving a counter-claim by said corporation. Guess who would end up eating the upkeep, and TCO of that factory?

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[Kwil]

You assume that

A) The corporation manages to live through the lawsuit to begin with, and

B) They're not sued by a front corporation that declares bankruptcy, folds up, and disappears.

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[swb]

Most assets are fungible and unless the suit is about an item of such scarcity that there is no suitable replacement available (particularly unique plot of land, work of art, etc).

I can't see a judge restraining the defendants rights to their property without good cause (risk of flight, etc). And even if there was some kind of risk, there's always the option of the defendent posting a bond equivilent to the value of the property such that they may retain control over their property without the property potentially evaporating.

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[That's Unpossible!]

For example, if i sue you over the rights to your property, even if I don't have ANY proof, I can prevent you from selling your home for as long as I can keep appealing the courts (hopefully) sane decision. Just think about what would happen if you were about to move and I did that.

Just think about what if your lawsuit had merit, and someone sold the property you had ownership rights on?

Re:America, land of the free...lawsuit

[dafunn]

Yep, been there, done that, got the hat.

The house we (eventually) purchased had been tied up in a civil suit brought by an ex-wife against the seller. Of course, the seller kindly DIDN'T DISCLOSE that information until days before closing. After about a month of wrangling (and me telling my agent I was looking for another property), the seller got a judge to agree to allow him to put the proceeds from the house into an escrow account after the sale.

The mess was compounded by the fact that the plaintiff couldn't be reached - the defendant couldn't get in touch with her, his attorney couldn't get in touch with her, and even HER attorney couldn't contact her. So, instead of tying up the property any longer the judge allowed the escrow account option while the suit proceeded (and my wife and I finally completed the purchase).

In retrospect I should've walked away from this deal - I spent the first year or so finding all kinds of hidden problems in the property (and I'm sure there are a couple of others awaiting discovery).

But it was my first purchase and I'm chalking it up to Lessons Learned(tm). Next time I know to be more cautious.

Only in the US

[Kombat]

In the US, you can sue for anything at all, and this is what happenes when a company with money picks on someone who doesn't. Hmm.. who does this remind us of? ??AA anyone? The case would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat, but first it has to get there, and that means that Mark Mumma will first have to hire a lawyer (which he already has, according to TFA).

This is just another symptom of the twisted legal system that has been allowed to evolve in the US. When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

Re:Only in the US

[rsd-17]

When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

Unfortunately many of the legislators are lawyers. It's not in their interest for this state of affairs to end.

Re:Only in the US

[zeth]

Well, just remove all the safety labels from everything and let the problem solve itself.

Re:Only in the US

[Peldor]

Given how big the lawyer lobby is, I wouldn't hold my breath for any real reform to our cluttered legal system. Legislators are very well paid (via campaign contributions if nothing else) to adopt a lawyer-friendly stance.

Re:Only in the US

[Lillesvin]

Parent is just a rip-off of a famous Bash-quote.

Sue him!

Re:Only in the US

[ek_adam]

I don't want to make it hard to sue, but I do want barratry (The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.) prosecuted more often.

Re:Only in the US

[Senzei]

When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

Probably when they stop getting something valuable out of them. The prevailing idea is that it takes big money to win an election. Big money is easier to get from one source (corporations/wealthy individuals) than it is from many (not-so-wealthy individuals in groups). This is even more true when there is some kind of implied return on "investment" for those making the donations.

In short, when politicians stop acting in their OWN self interest, we may see some reform here. Until then the law will chase the dollar.

Re:Only in the US

[EvilBudMan]

--When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?--

When we quit electing lawyers to office.

Re:Only in the US

[zeth]

Ah, now I know where I heard it. Thanks.

We need to knock them off their horse

[FunWithHeadlines]

" "It simply filed a lawsuit in a court that it knew had no jurisdictional authority what-so-ever," Mumma explained. "Today's spammer tends to think it will escape prosecution because they've never been prosecuted. It has a false sense of security because nobody has come along and legally knocked it off its high horse."

A common tactic nowadays. Take someone to court even on a frivolous charge, knowing they can't afford to play the legal game. This works until someone takes the bluff and says, "OK, buddy, I'll see you in court and I intend to make you lose, and lose badly." For that you need a deep-heeled "victim," precisely the type that tends not to get sued in these sort of situations.

But every now and then a bully miscalculates, as we saw with SCO versus IBM. So what we need is for someone with bucks to take on these spamming sleazes, point out they are misusing the law with these abusive lawsuits, and knock them off their high horse.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[Ziviyr]

Was IBM ever a legal pushover?

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[idontgno]

But every now and then a bully miscalculates

And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).

It's a nasty weapon which can be most effectively wielded by the nastiest creatures. Normal productive law-abiding citizens can only get shafted.

Kinda makes vigilantism look appealing, sometimes.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[filekutter]

Yes, this IS, big money going after someone pointing out the truth (I'll refrain from Bush bashing), to silence them and keep the public in the dark. He's going to need the EFF, and ACLU to fight this one since the spammers obviously have VERY deep pockets.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[FunWithHeadlines]

"Was IBM ever a legal pushover?"

No, not at all. But in SCO's case their assumption seems to have been that IBM wouldn't want to bother with a protracted legal case and would want to settle for less money that it would cost to defend themselves. That was the miscalculation. A sleazy outfit such as SCO never figured on IBM caring about their reputation in the marketplace, and so seems to have been caught off-guard by IBM's willingness to go the distance in erasing SCO from the face of the earth.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[Ironsides]

And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).

It is getting tuffer to declare Chapter-11 (bankruptcy) in the US specifically for cases that you have just described. The problems are being worked on, it just takes a while.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[FunWithHeadlines]

"you are assuming SCO vs IBM was a failure..."

It's not over yet. Jail time may yet await all those newly-rich folks. Their reputations are already ruined. And don't forget, after SCO loses their case, IBM gets to move forward with their counter-suit.

SCO vs IBM will go down in history as a monumental failure, temporary stock pumping riches notwithstanding.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[BoomerSooner]

Tougher to file for people to file Chapter 11. Not corporations, it is very easy to disolve a corporation after paying out all the revenue to employees, etc...

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[drooling-dog]

It is getting tuffer to declare Chapter-11 (bankruptcy) in the US specifically for cases that you have just described.

I think the idea is to restrain individual bankruptcies; e.g., people who get into deep doo-doo with their credit cards. Will corporate bankruptcies be affected as well?

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[jonadab]

> But every now and then a bully miscalculates, as we saw with SCO versus IBM.

That was more than just miscalculation as to the victim's resources. SCO knew very well what kind of resources IBM could bring to bear. There was something deeper going on in their corporate psyche than mere miscalculation.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[B3ryllium]

Damnit. Now I'm thinking of 'Survivor - Eye of the Tiger'. Why oh why did you have to say "Go the distance"? :)

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[FunWithHeadlines]

Ugh, now you've put that song in my head! If there's one thing people who read my site have come to expect from me is I'll use a bad song to make a bad joke any chance I get.

OK, lemme see, Eye of the Tiger as a commentary on the SCO case....

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[hawk]

Debt for "Intentionally caused harm" cannot be discharged in bankruptcy (though the plaintiff has to go to bankruptcy court to get the determination made).

Also, when a corporation is liable, it's for the act of an agent *for which the agent is also liable*. You should always sue both . . .

hawk, esq.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[Politburo]

As other posters have pointed out, the recent bankruptcy "protection" bill only "reformed" Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy, aka personal bankruptcies. Chapter 11, which covers most corporate bankruptcy, was not touched.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[Poppler]

Will corporate bankruptcies be affected as well?

This 'reform' legislation is paid for credit card companies and other loan institutions. They want to squeeze every last penny out of consumers. Corporations are not the target, this targets chapter 7 bankruptcies (the type most often filed by individuals).

See the open secrets page for info on who's behind the legislation.

Re:We need to knock them off their horse

[multipartmixed]

Actually, the line from the song is "Went the distance [, now I'm back on my feet]"

Great guy

[strider44]

I'm not sure whether he is profiting from sueing spammers (don't care - even if he is he's still doing us all a good service) but good on him, and I hope that he gets through the frivolous lawsuit and counterclaims.

I don't know about America, isn't it illegal to make such lawsuits?

Re:Great guy

[ChaosCube]

No, you can pretty much sue anybody for anything, just as long as you can afford it. If you are a mean idiot with money and an intelligent lawyer, the most rediculous things can be spun into a seemingly logical argument. Well, logical enough to make it through the first few steps of our legal system.

Re:Great guy

[Senzei]

Well, logical enough to make it through the first few steps of our legal system.

Which is usually enough to at least cost the other side a lot of money. In a sense you can create a monetary war of attrition and destroy the other person financially just by stalling on an argument that was frivilous to begin with.

I guess we know what ??? means...

[PornMaster]

Cruise.com has filled in the blank in the chain of:
1) Spam
2) ???
3) Profit!!!

It's SUE!!!!

Re:I guess we know what ??? means...

[ideonode]

1) Spam
2) ???
3) Profit!!!

I know you were doing the +funny thing, but you've complicated matters a little. Fact is:
1) Spam
2) Profit!!!
is where we're getting at, and the cause of the problem. The key to fighting spam should be as much about educating folk not to respond to spam as it is about technical (and legal) challenges against the spam-mongers.

Litigation and spam

[Monoman]

Keep sending them spam, and keep spending them to court.

What do these two things have in common?

1. Both or forced upon you.
2. Both put a cost burden (time, money, etc) on you.

What a great world we live in.

Liar Liar

[Beost]

It reminds me of the scene where the lady helps a robber sue the family that he was robbing because he fell through the skylight and hurt himself...

cruise.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not make that a link in the article description. Then we can slashdot them and drive up their bandwidth bill to $4million.

You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalist U.S.A.,
spammers sue you!

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[shutdown -p now]

In Communist China,
spammers are shot on sight.

It's just that noone can find them for some reason.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Vince Mo'aluka]

Nice try, but what we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot. What we have in the US is a bastardized form of capitalism, where the competitive edge is found not in being able to produce the best product at the lowest price, but in having the ability to bribe government to tilt the scales in your favor. Throw in a large helping of socialist welfare policy and you have the US. Again, this is NOT capitalism.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[slavemowgli]

If only they were - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd get considerably less spam then.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Guppy06]

"It's just that noone can find them for some reason."

Sounds like those USA PATRIOT Act abuses...

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[diplomaticImmunity]

oh god if this were only true...

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[ect5150]

I love the following two quotes from famous economists, because they are both oh-so-true:

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.
John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946, English Economist

There is one and only one responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.
Milton Friedman 1912-, American prominent economist advocate of free markets, 1976 Nobel price for economics

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[legirons]

"Nice try, but what we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot."

Take money from the people (taxes)

"The party" decides what to do with it. Both Democratic and Republican subsets of The Party take turns at this.

The money is given to people who are friends of The Party. (defense contracts, etc.)

As you say, not entirely capitalism.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Firethorn]

The problem is that spammers, living in basements like they do, are rarely seen. ;)

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Jim_Callahan]

Nah, its not quite bribing. You throw money and support at people that already agree with you, generally.

In either case, the people that sell the most stuff = the winners, and they sell things for the most part by appealing to the consumer, not by forcing the consumer to buy their stuff. That's what makes it capitalism. There are some control elements, of course, that's what governments do, but the capitalist aspect seems to dominate these days.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[geminidomino]

You forgot the other half:

• Take money from Friends of the Party (Bribes^WContributions)
• Sculpt laws to fit the best interests of the above
• Give "it" to the people, without benefit of lube.

Re:You got that wrong my friend... it's...

[Vince Mo'aluka]

You're forgetting the most fundamental requirement of capitalism: voluntary association. Government is not voluntary. It is pure force, the exact opposite of what drives free trade.

To a certain extent, business still has to compete on voluntary grounds, but this can be superceded by any application of force whenever possible. Unfortunately, brute force trumps voluntary association.

Being able to work the system in your favor (being able to "bribe government") is what gives a business the real competitive edge nowadays. You will find that the most successful corporations are the ones who are most accomplished at this practice. That's no coincidence. Why spend effort on persuading your customers that you have the best product, when you can simply force them to buy your product? Why spend effort on competing on voluntary grounds, when you can just eliminate your competition? Government makes this all possible. I tend to call it "bribing" because all of this benefits government too. Any time government gets to spend tax money, make new laws, or generally increase its power over the people, government benefits.

Government collecting wealth by force, and then distributing it, is the exact opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is the people deciding for themselves where, if, and when to spend their earnings. If that crucial element of voluntary choice is removed from the equation -- i.e. if force is interjected into the equation -- then free trade (and hence capitalism) is compromised.

Will there be another win or a first defeat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting stuff at the very end of the emediawire article.

Copied:

SUEaSpammer.com and SUEDbySPAMMERS.com are trademarks of MummaGraphics, Inc. Cruise.com is a registered trademark of Omega World Travel, Inc.

MummaGraphics, Inc., founded in 1993, is a provider of Internet web hosting and web site design services and has begun directing its energies to curbing unwanted junk email, a/k/a. spam. MummaGraphics began suing spammers in August 2004 and intends to file several more lawsuits in the future. MummaGraphics, Inc. is currently undefeated in court.

Re:Will there be another win or a first defeat?

[bradhannah]

The webpage is very one sided. I certainly don't side with spammers. But it is interesting that he talks very little about suing spammers, and more about his simple "Stop sending me mail" message. If you notice, he actually offered a settelement of $6250 (or soemthing like it), but why? If he really did nothing wrong? I think he is hiding something. Maybe I will have to read the actual suit to find out. Brad

Re:Will there be another win or a first defeat?

[djmurdoch]

If you notice, he actually offered a settelement of $6250 (or soemthing like it), but why? If he really did nothing wrong?

He offered to let the spammers pay him $6250 instead of the full amount allowed under the Oklahoma law. He didn't offer to pay them anything.

Re:Will there be another win or a first defeat?

[arbitraryaardvark]

Most people are undefeated in court. By undefeated I'm guessing he means "nobody we sued bothered to show up" which often means "we couldn't find out who to serve." Mumma is the bully here. He goes around threatening to sue people in oklahoma under an oklahoma statute that is probably unconstitutional and possibly preempted by federal law. Getting sued is a lot of fun, but not enough for to motivate me to go to oklahoma. I'm guessing the standard response is to not show up. This time somebody called him on it. Sure, the people he threatens aren't angels. It's easier for a playground bully to pick on the kid who nobody likes. The suit is a fairly standard kind of shot across the bow - threaten to sue somebody, and don't be surprised if they move first, choosing the time and place for the battle. The facts and the law are in dispute. Nobody's clearly in the right here. So far we've heard spin from one side of an adversarial process. Let's check back in a year.

Fight.

[eddy]

Shades of TaubmanSucks.com

Maybe Public Citizen can look into it.

Follow-up

[Trolling4Columbine]

FTOFA:

"Omega World Travel has argued that Mumma violated their trademark and copyright by using images of the company's founders and the company's logo on his website, and they also allege that Mumma defamed individuals associated with Cruise.com by posting personal insults on his site."

I don't want to appear to support spammers, but if there is merit to the claim, Mumma might have been asking for this.

Re:Follow-up

[shird]

It certainly would have been nice if the article submitter put this in the summary. As it is, nothing was given as a reason for them sueing, which makes it pretty damn useless.

Re:Follow-up

[maotx]

I believe I read somewhere that the Supreme Court ruled it is ok to use a trademark as long as it is not associated with financial gain. Can't find the link right now but it had to do with how sites similar to the corporate hate sites got away with it.

Re:Follow-up

[rastos1]

If I put up a web page with image linking to their web-site am I still violating their trademark and copyright? In such setup I just give info to the client browser where to find the image.

My Question

[varmittang]

How the hell do spammers get rights like this to be able to sue someone who asks from them to stop sending stuff to him? I mean, can't we make a do not spam list like the do not call list. Or are the telemarketers going to use this as presidence and start calling me agian?

Re:My Question

[m50d]

If you RTFA I think you'll find they're claiming they're not spammers and so suing him for defamation. Which, if they're really not spammers, they have every right to, and indeed should to protect their name.

Why I don't own a gun.

[Kaenneth]

I don't want to go to prison for shooting someone just for being a complete ass, like the plaintiffs in this sort of case.

Look at the press release.

[karmaflux]

Mumma wrote it. Why did he make a press release? By the way, eMediaWire is owned by PR Web, and is a site where anyone can issue a press release. For instance this is the latest from my hosting network. Just for instance. My instinct is to blow off anything on PR Web as crap.

Re:I'd like to know more

[necrodeep]

According to: http://www.suedbyspammers.com/about/index.html

1.Defamation (for calling them spammers)
2.Trademark Infringement

Mr. Mumma have already lost the case

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the name of the law... CAN-SPAM

Easy slashdot links

[AnonymousCowheart]

Easy /. links to the spammers sites are:
here and
here
Please click away

Re:Easy slashdot links

[nine-times]

Thanks for the referral! I've been looking for a way to plan my next vacation, so I'll have to try these fine companies out.

Their suing for defamation

[The I Shing]

The spammer is suing this fellow for defamation for putting insulting remarks about them on his website. Clearly they're trying to both shut him up about their spamming operation and keep him from pursuing them in court for violating CAN-SPAM. This company will probably end up paying every cent of their victim's legal bills, and are only drawing attention to themselves. Pretty foolish, if you ask me.

Re:Their suing for defamation

[HomerJayS]

For there to be defamation, doesn't there have to be some level of good reputation to begin with?

If your reputation is already well below the level of Stalin or Hitler, how can you possibly be defamed?

Headline

[northcat]

The headline from ARS Technica "Spammer sues anti-spammer for $4 million". The headline from Slashdot "Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 million".

Re:Headline

[Dr.Opveter]

The second link in the summary links to eMediaWire which has Spammer Sues Spam Victim, Continues Spamming Him as the headline.

Re:Headline

[legirons]

The headline from Slashdot "Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 million"

Somebody is getting spam daily from a particular company who have refused to stop even after a request, a certified letter, and even with a pending court case they're still sending spam. Is there any problem with the word "victim" in this case?

You miss the point

[Ironsides]

This is just another symptom of the twisted legal system that has been allowed to evolve in the US. When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

The lawsuit actually has to go before a judge before it can be declared baseless. Someone has to make that decision and in this "twisted legal system" that person is the judge. You want this thrown out quicker? Fine. But if you delegate it to someone else, there is just more chance of someone throwing out a legitimate law suit after being slipped a couple of Benjamins. Judges are (generally) harder to bribe than some court clerk.

Wait until the second day of the trial comes and then you can consider if legislation is needed to end these claims. That is, if there is a second day.

Re:Liar Liar

[Meagermanx]

Actually that didn't happen in that movie. The old secretary lady just stated that a burglar fell through her skylight while trying to break in, fell on a knife, and the lawyer got her 4 million dollars. And then Jim Carrey says he would of got him 7.

loser pays court fees

[peter303]

Some countries control frivolous lawsuits by making the loser pay the court fees on both sides. In the US that is considered a violation of due process, so it genrally isnt done, though a judge can order it. Thus, frivoulous lawsuits can be filed fairly readily.

Sounds like

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like this guy is being sued for being a bit of an ass.

He's right, of course, but he still sounds like a bit of an ass.

If I were on the jury...

[Ironsides]

It would be justifiable homicide.

Re:If I were on the jury...

[Kaenneth]

well, I wouldn't shoot to kill, just kneecaps and elbows. but then they could go into shock, bleed to death, get an infection or something.

and if you left them alive, they'd probably sue.
but if you killed them, their family would sue.

a bit of a tricky situation.

Re:If I were on the jury...

[SirTalon42]

Kill the family? Its perfectly legal, its all self defense!

Re:Hmm

[Conanymous Award]

Where I live, people often put "no advertisements, please" signs on their doors if they don't want a heap of colorful waste paper on their front door carpet on a daily basis.

This case is the equivalent of those paper advertisers suing you for not accepting their carbage in your mailbox. How bold can the spammers get before somebody decides to destroy them once and for all? Can somebody soon paint ads on your house without your concent?

Does he have the Paypal account to donate?

[AShuvalov]

I'd like to donate few $ to Mumma to support his defence. Would be nice to see people joining me.

Re:Does he have the Paypal account to donate?

[akeyes]

here is the link for donations (via paypal): http://pop.suedbyspammers.com/index.html Is /. the donation page a good thing or a bad thing?

Oh, The Irony

[stephandahl]

According to the court documents, the General Counsel for the spammer is a "John Lawless".

Clearly, Nominative Determinism strikes again.

Filing a lawsuit cost several thousand dollars

[peter303]

The cheapest lawyers cost about $200 an hour, and sometimes paralegals will help you fill out the paperwork. But even so it will take several lawyer hours to churn out a boiler plate court filing (many examples at The Smoking Gun ).

They have an 800 number on their front page.

[Anonymous Coward]

Show them what spam is about -- call.

Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better?

[drooling-dog]

Well, that's what Bush's "tort reform" is all about, except that it only tries to stop individuals from suing corporations, and certainly not the other way around...

Madness

[NoMercy]

Someone put his email in the weekly newsletter box here here:

http://www.cruise.com/

And he couln't be bothered to remove himself with the link provided in the email (Subject: Weekly Cruise E-deals) here:

http://www.cruise.com/forms/emremove.asp?email=inb ox@webguy.net

Instead he makes loud legal noises, and demands money from cruise.com for the emails he didn't bother to use the automated remove function and prefered the very unreliable ask the parent company to do it. They see the legal demand for money, and send it to there lawyers to handle, who sue him to get them off there case for being stupid, they add to the stupidity by sueing him for 4 milion.

Hopfully the judge will dismiss both parties actions and make them pay there own legal costs, and perhaps give them both a telling off for abusing the legal process to gain money or quash media attention.

Re:Madness

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that he did ask them to stop and even sent a certified letter.

Re:Madness

[AndroidCat]

Why should he use a removal process for something he didn't sign up for? If someone else signed him up, then their verification process is broken. (More likely the spammer just harvested the addresses.)

Re:Madness

[NoMercy]

I just signed up using yet another email account to there weekly emails, not recieved any verifications and most verification systems do send the emails immediately.

I'd asume there email verification system is broken, rather than there harvesting emails.

If someones pushing viagra from some domain name I've never head of, yes ok that's spam, when someones sending out weekly newsletters from there own servers, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Madness

[NoMercy]

Yes he did: Sent a Certified Letter Demand for Payment dated 01/25/2005 Signed for January 31, 2005.

That one probably went to the legal department and not the web admin who runs the email list.

Re:Madness

[rainman_bc]

And he couln't be bothered to remove himself with the link provided in the email

You're an idiot. You don't know a lick about this case and you make fuck-tard allegations like this.

Take a look at how he communicated with them

I think he made a reasonable effort (phoning them) to get himself removed off their mailing list.

Re:Madness

[NoMercy]

I'm not a fuck-tard, and not entirely sure what one of those is but I asume it has something to do with scat play, which isn't one of my things at all, and I'd very much apreciate it if you'd not call me that in future.

I know he called up a person at Omega World Travel, the parent cmopany of Cruse.com, and I know that the person he talked to agreed to stop the unwanted emails being sent. In my opinion this was a pretty big longshot at stoping the emails, calling up the company which is sending them might have been a better idea.

Re:Madness

[rainman_bc]

My apologies. You lit me up...

I just read the transcript of the first phone conversation. There's a bit of a seedy part in there that he requested everyone from the list on www.optoutbydomain.com be removed from the mailing list.

I kinda think his tactics are a bit questionable though. It was a reasonable request by the platif to request his email address in the first phone conversation, and Mumma refused to supply it, but rather provided a huge list off another web site.

It's like putting a sign on your lawn requesting no soliciting for you or anyone else in your neighbourhood.

I actually think you're right. cruise.com should come out of this unscathed.

Re:Madness

[biglig2]

I disagree, as Mumma points out, by the tie he phones them they have already broken the law; he says himself that removing his addresses does not absolve them from being sued - although he admits it is probably a good idea, as continuing to spam him would be bad.

And he would no doubt argue that he was being helpful by providing them not just with his domain, but with lots of domains that have not opted-in.

Re:Madness

[rainman_bc]

Yeah, but there's some holes that the courts will probably consider. Seems like the only way to get on their mailing list from their web site is to request a quote and opt-in.

He opted in using their opt-in method.

He should equally opt out using their opt-out method. The courts would (IMO) consider that a resonable request. He didn't attept to opt out, and instead provided them a list of everyone who'd like to opt out.

Look, cruise.com isn't a V1agra or Pen1s size company. They sell a legitimate travel service. I don't think they deserve this.

IMO he's bing a pain in the ass, and seeking personal gain from the CAN-SPAM act.

Re:Madness

[valdezjuan]

I think the main point is that he did not opt in at all, neither did any of the address's that were located in the file he had the company man open. Did you read the conversation that he had with the lawyer?

WebGuy is the victim (or at least the anit-spammer).
Lawless is the general counsel for the company that owns the spammers (page 1 indicates that they are the owner and operator of the website in question).

WebGuy: And uh, I keep receiving emails from cruise.com erroneously claiming that I have subscribed to some type of list. Uh, this is actionable under Oklahoma Statutes.

Lawless: Probably under Virgina Statutes too. We (laughing) we have, we have like a subscriber list.

WebGuy: Uh, huh.

Lawless: _for people who want information on cruises and _

WebGuy: Uh, huh.

Lawless: _ apparently - you're on the list - uh and you_

WebGuy: Well, I didn't "opt-in" to the list the way that the email claims happened.

The lawyer further goes on to ask if there is an "opt-out" option/link. Which WebGuy responds to by indicating that the majority of those are used by spammers to verify that the address is valid. He also indicates that since he did not "opt-in" that he should not have to "opt-out". Which can be seen as being a pain in the ass, but he does have a valid point. If you never gave that address to the spammer, why should you have to follow an opt-out procedure that may or may not be a trick to confirm an email address?

At the end of the conversation, he asks the lawyer "how soon can we expect to stop receiving mail from cruise.com". To which the lawyer responds with "I'm going to take them down right now".
Even if we all agree that giving them a text file filled with several names is somewhat unreasonable, the lawyer still aggreed to it. He still responded that he was going to remove those address. If you go to WebGuy's site, you can see that after the lawyer agreed to remove them from the list, he (webguy) started to receive even more spam, which can be seen as a retaliation from the company.

The money he offered to settle for was $.05 on the dollar for the maximum damages allowed under the law. Given that this is not a frivolous law suit, that would seem like an extremely reasonable amount to settle for (most people would never settle that low).

He may seem like he is being sort of an ass, but I don't think he is completely in the wrong, providing that the facts are as he represents them. Even if the company sells a legitimate service does not give them license to spam people. If you can subscribe a thrid party to their mailing list, then the controls are too weak and need to be fixed.

Re:Madness

[rainman_bc]

Oh I missed that - that he hadn't opted in... But if cruise.com can provide information about a list where he DID opt in, and where he agreed his information would be sold (truth is they probably just bought the list). I suppose this case will come down to how annoyed the judge is with the spam he/she receives ;)

Re:Madness

[geminidomino]

I'm not a fuck-tard[sic]

All evidence to the contrary. It's an internet truism that you NEVER respond to spam, *especially* to "opt-out" links, as then your email address is proven live and becomes even more valuable for the spammer to sell than the promise of your eyeballs to some equally unethical spammers' client. Even my GRANDMOTHER knows this(and everyone knows Gramma is always the litmus test for 'is it easy enough for end users').

And before you or some other fucktard cites U-CAN-SPAM prohibiting this, let me point out that if spammers actually gave an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating pastry about the law, they wouldn't be peddling snake oil drugs, prescription drugs sans prescription, infringing trademarks, etc... U-CAN-SPAM hasn't stopped a damned thing.

"Insightful", my fat Italian ass.

Even better

[DrYak]

I have an even better idea for the Spammer so they can get rid of all "anti-spam" fights.

They could try to patent anti-spam filtering technique, and start sueing e-mail servers and clients that try to stop spam.

Maybe they can hire a few SCO lawyers to help them...

Automated remove function?

[Anonymous Coward]

That only checks if the address is valid. Do NOT click those. If you do, you get more spam.

Re:Automated remove function?

[NoMercy]

Well my email isn't in any of those lists, I've had a spam email recieving email for years and just submitted it to there remove link, there responce: "Your email address is not on our mailing list."

To me it looks genuine, if I don't get any cruse emails in my spam email account I'll say it's probably totally genuine.

It's a bit like terrorism, the fear of spam is creating irrational fears in people. I'm not scared of spam, I've receved thousands to my email account, and though a mix of RBL's, SMTP protocol verification (lots of spam engines don't wait for the server to respond to there statements) and bayeasan filtering, I only recieve about one a week.

I am scared of people who have irrational fears though.

Re:Automated remove function?

[phorm]

there responce: "Your email address is not on our mailing list." To me it looks genuine, if I don't get any cruse emails in my spam email account I'll say it's probably totally genuine.

It might be now, but keep in mind they've already been sued over it... so using the "unsubscribe" links to validify harvested addresses would likely, in fact, net them larger punitive damages in future lawsuits.

Re:Automated remove function?

[xMilkmanDanx]

They might also be smart enough to just sell your now verified valid email address to another list. By removing you from theirs before selling your address to someone else, they look clean but still profit.

That is just not true

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it makes great rhetoric, but your statement is wrong. Whether you choose to believe it or not, there are standards that lawsuits must meet in order to go forward. You must have some cause for action to file a suit. If, as you say, you have no proof, the suit will be dimissed, end of story.

Understand that when you talk this way about the court system, you are playing a hand that the biggest, most well-funded business interests in the country have dealt you. They would like nothing more than to convince everyone that our court system is irrevocably broken and lawsuits need to be limited. In the end the beneficiaries of such a movement are big manufacturers, big insurance, etc. Don't be a sheep--find out more about the legal system.

Reminds me of t-shirt I saw

[cgrayson]

On CafePress: "I oppose the death penalty for everyone but spammers" Here it is.

Re:Hmm

[NoMercy]

Apart from cruse.com isn't part of the spam industury, before the lawsuit the only thing they did wrong is not send emails saying 'Someone at 192.0.34.166 entered your email to signup to our weekly email of curse prices, if you wish to sign up please click here, if not ignore this email or click here' before adding people to the list.

didn't RTFA MOD DOWN!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm if you RTFA you woudl have seen where it was said this is a SLAPP siute. IN THOSE WORDS EXACTLY!!!!

Re:didn't RTFA MOD DOWN!!!!

[Joffrey]

I *did* RTFA, which was a press release, and the other FA, from ArsTechnica. The ArsTechnica author simply concluded that it was a SLAPP suit.

By definition, concluding that a lawsuit is a SLAPP suit is an opinion. On its face, cruise.com's suit is simply a defamation and trademark case -- it could potentially be a SLAPP suit if Mumma can prove later that it was simply brought to shut down his protected speech, but since noone here at /. actually has any facts about the underlying defamation and trademark claims, it seems that it would be difficult for anyone to judge whether its claim has any merit.

Re:Easy slashdot phone #'s and addresses

[Anonymous Coward]

Also:

888-333-3116
800-217-1807

Hawrylko, Gregg (GAH50) legal@OWT.NET
Omega World Travel
3102 OMEGA OFFICE PARK
FAIRFAX, VA 22031-2400
US
(703) 359-0200 fax: (703) 359-8889

They have an affiliate program, too, which might be the source of the spam.

They're also a member of the BBB, which might be another avenue to pursue. Last time I did that with Inphonic, though, rather than slapping them for spamming, the BBB changed their policy to allow it, so YMMV.

You have ALL missed the point

[bsdbigot]

TFA is decidedly one-sided. By looking at Mumma's *own* websites, this is a pretty clear-cut case of entrapment by Mumma.

For example, head over to SueASpammer, and you will see right off the bat he calls for people to

1. set a trap
2. sue

Reading a little further, he implies that people should falsify their identity when OPTING IN TO AN EMAIL LIST, and then later using that as leverage (e.g. say "Who the hell is Joe Blow? My name is John Public). I'd have to look into any applicable law, but in my dictionary, that constitutes fraud.

Number three, if you read Omega's suit, they allege that Mumma did not comply with the provided opt-out procedure, but instead called them and almost immediately started threatening them. Mumma allegedly would not provide his information so that they might comply with his "request" to be removed. Instead, he was belligerent, insulting, and threatening. This may not be illegal, but it is certainly in poor taste and is a mark against him. Lawyers and judges don't want to deal with fanatics, for the most part - they want to deal with reasonable people that have a legitimate claim.

Number four, since Mumma's request for removal was NOT VALID via his own stupid actions, and since he allegedly SIGNED UP for this "spam," via indirect admission at SueASpammer.com procedures, this is not a valid claim under CAN-SPAM. Furthermore, this also invalidates Mumma's claim under Oklahoma law, see 776.5.3 at SpamLaws OK.

I would not at all be surprised to see Omega et al. come out of this not only unscathed, but smelling like a rose.

Re:You have ALL missed the point

[198348726583297634]

One thing to note: entrapment is only entrapment if done by law enforcement officers. The rules are different for them, you know.

Re:You have ALL missed the point

[Just Some Guy]

IANAL, but giving someone the opportunity to violate the law and then holding them responsible for doing it isn't entrapment. Entrapment includes an element of coercion, such as police threatening to arrest your kids if you don't sell drugs for them. That's why drug and prostitution stings are legal: the police are providing the ability to break the law, but aren't making people do so.

Re:You have ALL missed the point

[Manchot]

It's a good thing that entrapment only applies to criminal cases, then. Even then, the standards under which it applies are very high. See this Slate article for more details:

1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime.
3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so.

Even if it did apply in civil cases (which it doesn't), this wouldn't even come close to entrapment. Not one of the three legal conditions was satisfied. Basically, you've made the mistake of thinking that traps and entrapment are one in the same, but they're not.

Furthermore, though it may be fraud in a loose sense of the word, it doesn't even come close to criminal fraud. Thousands upon thousands of cases have hinged upon evidence gained from FBI agents posing as 13-year-old girls or undercover cops posing as crackheads, all of whom give phony names. Giving a false name for the sake of obtaining evidence is completely legal, unless that false name gives the impression that you are another specific person (e.g., if you are a drug dealer and the cop comes to you claiming to be your boss). Random names, though, are just fine.

Re:You have ALL missed the point

[jmrobinson]

I don't see ANY opt-out procedure on their website.

Not to mention, I know this guy who knows this other guy whos brother works for a hardcore spam place, and he says the opt outs are coded to where you have to submit like 10 times. He says this is in case there are "automated" opt out programs out there.

I haven't personally been spammed by cruise.com, but it looks like their ONLY advertisement is spam, and since that has been threatened, they are biting back.

Re:You have ALL missed the point

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

A word on 'Opting out'. I have a bunch of email addresses, some of which I use and some of which pretty much lie fallow.

A while ago, I half-reactivated one of the 'fallow' ones. At that stage it was getting 25 spams a day and I can't send mail via it anyway (they allow me to read using another ISP, but I would have to dial in to send mail and I no longer use/have a modem). This made it ideal to receive and react to 'comfirmations' from organisations I did not trust not to spam me. The type of confirmation I react to normally arrives within 2 minutes of me soliciting it so I just have to make sure my inbox is clear first.

One fine day I then started clicking on the 'Opt Out' buttons in the incoming Spam there, just to see what happened.

The surprising bottom line turned out to be: Opting out pretty much works. That address is now down to 5-7 spams a day while my main address (where I silently delete all spam) is approaching 30 a day. Some of the remaining spams are in chinese, others do not have an opt-out mechanism although even the second category there has fallen away recently.

Bog down a spammer's e-mail server.....

[SoundGuyNoise]

1) Using your mail client of choice, create an account using the spammers e-mail address as the "From" and "Reply to" fields (seeing that spammers sometimes use my address as "from", it's only fighting fair).
2) Sending to the same address, attach a large video clip. Larger the better.
3) Send that big ole attachment, and when the spam server auto-replies to it's own e-mail address, see what happens when that giant file bounces around and duplicates inside its own server.

(I don't know much about IP spoofing, so I'm sure that would help as well)

I did it once to a very annoying spammer, and received no more, at least of that spam.

Re:Bog down a spammer's e-mail server.....

[rastos1]

If only spammers filled in the valid and correct From/Reply to fields. In my world it is either bogus or some adress of zombie owner.

Re:whats the crux?

[PhraudulentOne]

The "somebody with the answer" is in the article so go read it.

Am I the only one that read the suit?

[natet]

According to the plaintiffs, the defendant (mumma) called them on the phone (specifically their legal department) and asked to opt out. When they asked for his email address, he refused to give it to them telling them to go to his site to find out what it is. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like an "Opt-out" scenario to me. If he wasn't even willing to give his email address to them to have it removed, that sounds to me like he was attempting to defraud the spammers. Much like the old auto insurance scam where someone pulls in front of your car and then slams on the breaks to get you to rear-end them. He has to prove that they have another method for getting email addresses for their "e-deals" other than the opt-in section of their website. If he can't do that, then their case against him is pretty solid. He opted in, he refused to opt-out, therefore they can still send him email.

I realize that this may be a very unpopular opinion on slashdot, but If half the things they allege in their suit are true, this guy is about as unscrupulous as most spammers. Companies aren't the only ones that can bring frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to get the other side to settle rather than go to trial. Of course, we probably don't have all the facts from either side, so the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

Re:Am I the only one that read the suit?

[Capt_Troy]

There's a transcript of the call here. I'm not sure who transcribed it, but it is apparently the phone call you are referring to.

He provided them with a list of domains which should be removed from their list, including his. So I think he really did provide them with the info they needed to take him off.

But you may be right about his intentions, as he makes several comments about the fact that they are already indebted to him. It's a short read, check it out.

Re:Am I the only one that read the suit?

[aug24]

What makes you say he opted in? I've read the whole thing, and the only bit where he mentions filling in forms in in response to spam, with unique information, so that he can prove 'x is working with y'.

J.

Re:Am I the only one that read the suit?

[natet]

Because (and my only source on this is their suit) their list is only opt-in, meaning that the only way to get on their list is to go to their site and enter your email address in their webform and click submit.

I must also say, I have a friend that recieved this list for some time, and recently followed their instructions to opt-out. He hasn't recieved an email since.

Also, in response to another reply to my earlier post, I don't consider giving a list of domains to be opting out. The guy runs an internet service provider. He may have clients that opted in for the mail list, and to expect the operators of cruise.com to remove any of his domains from their mailing list would be derpiving these people of legitimate business.

Ok, just read the transcript of the call. So, basically, the guy calls up the company threatens to sue them as 'his' opt-out procedure? The only way for him to opt-out of a list is to get someone to pay him first? I don't recall reading that in the can-spam act. Now, if he had tried the established procedure of opting out of the mail, and continued to recieve the mail, then he would have a case, but until then, I don't believe he has any right to sue the business (and at this point, I don't consider these people spammers, as I have seen no evidence to the contrary). I haven't read the entire can-spam act, but I don't remember seeing anything that says that the email provider has to do anything other than provide a legitamate way for people to unsubscribe from their lists.

My gut feeling on this is, this guy is a gold digger.

Re:Am I the only one that read the suit?

[geminidomino]

Because (and my only source on this is their suit) their list is only opt-in,

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!! +5, Funny

Re:Am I the only one that read the suit?

[aug24]

I don't believe them, simple as that. I have received spam from US companies since CAN-SPAM saying "you are receiving this mail because you have opted in... to opt-out click here...". I certainly haven't, after all I'm in the UK, so why would I?!

IMO all they have done since CAN-SPAM is carry on with their existing spam lists and convert any new entries via the loosest opt-in rules they can define under the act.

In which case, of course, why should anyone have to follow their opt-out procedures? Just telling them a list of domains and saying 'get rid of anyone on those lists' doesn't seem unreasonable, if they don't provide a block removal method. He might have dozens of email addresses to type in otherwise, and as he points out, that might well confirm them as 'live' and cause them to get more spam.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure he's a gold digger too, but it's spammers gold he's digging, so he can carry on with my best wishes.

Justin.

SCO

[hawk]

See disclaimer in my other post about this not being legal advice.

To dismiss a case on the initial filing, the judge must find that even if everything in the complaint were proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief. That's not the case when alleging copyright infringement.

The next chance would be a summary judgment motion. At that point, evidence is weakly tested with the presumption that the fact finder (judge or jury) will take it in its most favorable light, and the evidence for the other party in the least favorable. If no reasonable person could find for the plaintiff under those circumstaances, then summary judgement is granted.

That's not a hard standard of the plaintiff to meet . . .

hawk, esq.

Re:SCO

[hawk]

There have been too damned many cases of people getting sued without these kinds of disclaimers. If I give advice over a phone to a stranger, or if a physician gives advice at a cocktail party, we *are* held to the regular standards of practice, and people *do* sue us for malpractice.

It's just not worth risking someone acting on what you say or write and claiming to have been misled--it costs thousands of dollars to deal with those. With the disclaimer, it drops to a couple of hundred, which will be recovered as sanctions.

hawk, esq.

Re:SCO

[RGRistroph]

Giving free and bad legal advice is not any more or less bad than giving any other kind of advice. Unless you are a lawyer; then you can be liable for malapractice for giving bad advice. On the internet, this is often some how twisted around to mean that you shouldn't offer commentary or advice about certain things unless you are a lawyer.

someone explain USA law here

[cliffski]

I dont understand the oft heard phrase "who can afford to defend themselves.."
Unless I REALLY misunderstand UK law, you don't need money to defend a case in court. just time. Sure, employing a good lawyer costs a lot fo money, but can you not represent yourself/ I dont see how this is an even vaguely fair legal system if any money is required to defend a court case. Do americans not have the right to a free lawyer if they can't afford one?

Re:someone explain USA law here

[Bequita]

"Do americans not have the right to a free lawyer if they can't afford one?"

We do have the right to a lawyer in criminal procedings, but these are civil procedings. One may represent oneself, but it can be fairly easy to make an ass of yourself that way.

Re:someone explain USA law here

[swv3752]

In criminal, not civil cases, you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, then one will be appointed for you.

You might have heard of the phrase "He who represents himself has a fool for a client." In a civil trial, (not small claims), a private individual will get creamed in court.

My other idea

[SoundGuyNoise]

Make a new e-mail account.

Create a black webpage, with black background, and all text, links, and viewed links as black.

In clear, concise, plain English, post said e-mail address with explicit instructions that no commercial interest may send you unsolicited e-mails, nor will the owner of the address ever opt-in to any mailing list.

Make sure you link to this black page from someplace else, so the web bots can find it.

When spam arrives, give them ONE CHANCE to follow the law and their own printed disclosure to remove you from their lists. Save all spam and spam removal requests as evidence.

1. Post e-mail
2. Unsubscribe
3. Sue
4. PROFIT!!!!

Re:My other idea

[phorm]

Why not? Some laws deal with the process of email address "harvesting" and/or guessing. If it's a unique address not used for other purposes, then it has been harvested.

If anything, it's a way of proving that the spammer is using illegal methods. This is more baiting then entrapment.

Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[Mad Man]

Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442)

Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

IANAFL

It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html

June 14, 2003
Essay on loser-pays

The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

* * *

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle, terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" (National Public Radio).

The principle in other countries: .....

Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html to read the rest of it.

An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays" archives (bold added):

March 15, 2005
"Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[killjoe]

Given the state of the legal system in the US loser pays would be a horrible idea. Big corporations would be completely off the hook because if you sue them and lose you will be on the hook for millions in legal fees.

It should be up to ANOTHER judge (or a jury) after the trial is over to make a determination as to whether the suit was meritless and frivolous. Obviously the presiding judge rules the case had merit and let it get to trial.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[dgatwood]

Most places where that is the case, AFAIK, have a maximum limit on the dollar amount, which would typically cover a single lawyer. It isn't a license for someone to rack up outrageous legal bills. It is a band-aid for preventing someone from suing frivolously by making them pay reasonable legal bills if they do.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[jessecurry]

However having a loser pays system in place here would allow people with a strong case who can't afford legal representation to do something other than give up.
I do like the idea that another judge(or panel of judges) deciding whether or not a suit was frivolous, but even without something like that in place I think that loser pays would benefit our legal system.
It's not to say that the loser would have to pay anytime, but if the judge hears a case and after testimony finds that the plaintiff had no case, and no reason to believe that they had a case, then they would have to pay court costs and legal bills.
In the case of someone suing a large corporation it is usually found that the plaintiff did have reason to sue, but the corporation finds some way to absolve themselves of responsibility.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[You Been Rob-ed!]

People with a strong case who can't afford legal representation don't have a problem even with the current system. If you have a good strong case any lawyer will take it on contingency.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[jessecurry]

that's not true, my cousin has a very strong case against a former business partner. He even has quite a bit of documentation to back up his claims along with several witnesses who will testify for him, but due to the financial situation he is left in by his former partner he is unable to afford a lawyer and hasn't been able to find one who will take it on contingency.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[killjoe]

Here is how I would structure it.

Another judge (or a panel or a jury) decides whether the suit was frivolous if the winning side requests it.

If the suit is judged to be frivolous the original presiding judge would be punished somehow for letting a frivolous suit go forward (he should not have ever let it get to trial). The defendents lawyers have to pay for the entire cost of the trial and the cost of the panel.

If the suit is not ruled frivolous the winning side pays for the panel.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[snorklewacker]

> It should be up to ANOTHER judge (or a jury) after the trial is over to make a determination as to whether the suit was meritless and frivolous.

That is indeed how loser-pays works in most countries. It's not automatic. Judges have awesome amounts of power in the parts of Europe where the legal system is not based on the common law (e.g. France). But even in England, the birthplace of common law, judges have discretion over the amount of award, including loser-pays.

Frankly when more than half the country believes that some guy in the sky will pitch us all into fire because we let two guys kiss and didn't throw them in jail for it, I don't think we're ever going to get more nuanced proposals like loser-pays up the steps.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[jessecurry]

but then couldn't the winning side then request that it should be decided if the suit to decide if the original suit was frivolous was frivolous? really I'm just kidding, it seems like a funny situation. I like the idea of the judges being responsible though.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[Strider-BG]

Except for many suits, the contingency could wipe out the settlement you were asking for. For instance, I'm currently negotiating with the insurance company of a person who hit me on my motorcycle a month ago. I am about to the point of suing them but I know that if I do, the lawyer will take so much of the settlement I'm likely to end up with less than if I would just accept their current low-ball offer. They know this as well and are simply stonewalling me into accepting their offer.

We're only talking a few thousand dollars here. They're offering US$2,500 for my bike while I think (based on ads for the same model) it's worth US$4,500. With a loser-pays scenario I could sue them and if I won, I could collect a 'fair' (determined by me and the judge/jury) settlement and the insurance company would pay my lawyer. As it stands today the US$2K difference I could make would be wipred out in legal fees, missed work, etc.

Our legal system sucks.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[geminidomino]

Big corporations would be completely off the hook because if you sue them and lose you will be on the hook for millions in legal fees.

As opposed to, say, the current system, where they've got enough money to drag the case on until you drop it or go bankrupt?

Not saying "loser pays" is a good idea. Just saying they're pretty much off the hook already.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[geminidomino]

Stupid question: Why not sue them for $4500 + $X for landshark fees?

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[Ben Hutchings]

French civil law is based on the Napoleonic Code, not common law. It's quite different.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[snorklewacker]

The sentence was poorly written ... I meant it as you described (i.e. "legal systems, e.g. that of France, not based on the common law"). Interestingly, the state of Louisiana supposedly has a similar system. Never having seen how their courts work, I couldn't say for sure.

Re:Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays"

[falconwolf]

Another judge (or a panel or a jury) decides whether the suit was frivolous if the winning side requests it.

Why would the winning side, if it's the plaintiff, request a decision on if the case was frivolous? The only tyme I can see the winning side saying it was frivolous is if it's the defendents.

If the suit is judged to be frivolous the original presiding judge would be punished somehow for letting a frivolous suit go forward (he should not have ever let it get to trial). The defendents lawyers have to pay for the entire cost of the trial and the cost of the panel.

If a judge were penalized for not ruling a case was frivolous what would stop them from ruling that all cases were frivolous? Afterall if they thought they may be penalized they may decide not to risk the possibility by ruling they were all frivolous. The only thing this would do is strengthen the hands of those who caused harm, the defendents, who already get away with murder.

If the suit is not ruled frivolous the winning side pays for the panel.

Why should the defendent, if the winner, be made to pay more? Shouldn't it be the looser if anyone?

Falcon

Oh, btw, I do have some experience with personal injury lawsuits, several years ago while riding my bike after my class I was hit by a moving van. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived, NOT!!! My sister told me after I came out of the coma, I have vertually no recollection of the months before the accident or of while I was in the hospital, I was screaming at everyone to let me die. Now, I am a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) survivor, Brain Injury Check List though I've wished I wasn't, all too frequently I wish I had died. Come to find out later the person who hit me had a record of causing other accidents, being hospitalized, and had an arrest warrent issued in another state. My medical bills were more than $125,000, add another $1500 per week for therapy for more than a year. I still haven't gotten all the therapy I've needed but had to quit because I couldn't afford any more. Allow corporations to do anything they want to make a profit, including distroying lives?

April 1st falling a tad early this year...

[ArsenneLupin]

John Lawless, ha!

in a couple of cases, though . . .

[hawk]

rent disputes in a couple of alrge cities do indeed work that way. In those cities you *can* stop paying rent, make up some phony excuse or allegation, and force a six month process.

In other places it's not so easy :)

I handled an eviction in El Cajon, CA, in which the deadbeats had watched too many programs about San Francisco evictions.

There is a five day response period. They filed a "motion to quash service" on the grounds that "the process server is a suspected relative". That was enough to put it on the court calendar over a month away . . . (no judge looks at the answer; it just automatically schedules a hearing)

I went in and got an "order shortening time" for a hearing the next day to quash their motion. The judge agreed that it was silly. Normally they would have had five days from then to file an answer or be out. I argued that as a sanction for the frivolous filing, time should be shortened to answer. She gave them until 5:00 the next day.

They thought that they'd been ordered out, and were gone by then . . .

hawk

trans fats not that bad

[r00t]

Trans fats might not be the best dietary choice. They might even be the very worst type of fat.

They are provably not anything like a poison though. They have become a huge part of the US diet over the past 100 years. Our expected lifetime has grown over that time, and is greater than that of many places that don't use trans fats. If trans fats were all that bad, we'd have noticed many decades ago.

So don't be exaggerating to the point of dishonesty. Have a cookie.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[fLameDogg]

Our expected lifetime has grown over that time, and is greater than that of many places that don't use trans fats.

That's interesting that you should mention that, in light of this recent news:

The obesity epidemic is on the verge of causing a stunning reversal in life expectancy, a new study predicts.

If trans fats were all that bad, we'd have noticed many decades ago.

A fair point, and I'm not the one to say that trans fats are the reason for the above ( even assuming it is credible). But certainly obesity is a big (no pun intended) public health problem in the US, and "hidden" trans fats may well be part of that.

At least, it might be good to consider how much longer our potentional life spans might be if we could properly manage our intake of trans fats. I tend to believe that people in general oversimplify things: fat is not "bad", rather it's a necessary part of the diet; same for carbohydrates, sugars, etc. Even cholesterol probably belongs in this category. Moderation, IMHO, is key. It's just hard to moderate what you can't monitor. It's also hard enough to deal with obesity without being hobbled by a complete ignorance of an important contrary factor.

Of course, being very moderate about Oreo cookies is probably a wise choice in any event. :O)

Re:trans fats not that bad

[xilet]

Its amazing to see the effects of obesity both on life span and quality of life. The reason that America has such a higher life span then the rest of the world is due to our medical instatution for those that can afford it. And even those that can't still get emergency help [for 10-20x the cost, straight to the taxpayers over the cost of preventive medicine, but thats another rant fest]. Most of the rest of the world has limited at best medical care, nothing like what we often take for granted. When I got diagnosed with an aggressive strain of cancer, a lot of what helped save my life was the quick availability of expensive, non common drugs, and what found it was very expensive imaging equipment. These are things that people in the 3rd world never have access to. We also have amazingly sanitary conditions, which prevents large scale disease here. And all of this has improved drasiticlly over the past 200 years with America, some of Europe, and parts of Asia leading it, the rest of the world lacks because they don't have access to what we have.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[glesga_kiss]

The reason that America has such a higher life span then the rest of the world is due to our medical instatution for those that can afford it.

Why is it Amercians automatically assume they are the best at everything? Sorry to pop that little bubble, but you aren't even close. The US scrapes in at number 50 in the world for life expectancy. In a list of 50.

Plus, the US health system is regarded as one of the worst in the free world. You acknoledge this yourself with "for those that can afford it". One thing I take issue with is the idea that doctors personally profit from what treatments they prescribe. Sure, doctors should be more trustworthy than car mechanics, but it's a dangerous set-up if you ask me.

Ironically, Cuba is seen as having one of the best health systems in the world. Go figure...

Re:trans fats not that bad

[glesga_kiss]

They have become a huge part of the US diet over the past 100 years. Our expected lifetime has grown over that time, and is greater than that of many places that don't use trans fats.

Utter nonsense. There have been a dozen major breakthroughs that have impacted life expectancy far more than an Orio might. In the last 100 years, we have wiped out childhood diseases such as polio, TB, mumps. We have learned how disease and viri spread, and how to control them. Everyone has fridges/freezers to keep food fresh and unspoiled. All of these advances would have a far greater impact on life expectancies than the 5/10 years you might lose through bad diet. Remember, 100 years ago, if all your kids lived to 18 years old it would be an unheard-of miracle. Nowadays, losing just one child is a major event.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[xilet]

My point was we have the latest medical technology, I was lucky enough to live in a good area of the country [DC] and have medical insurance. If I had not either I would not have survived at all, or I would be bankrupt and the taxpayers would have footed the bill. Don't take this as me saying the US has the greatest health care system in the world, for those with money and insurance it is [in most areas] one of the best systems out there. However for the rest of the population it is a completely different matter.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[CrayzyJ]

Looking at the same site, you can see the U.S.A. ranking #1 in motor vehicle accidents. So you see, your map does not correlate directly into health systems.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[Firethorn]

In what sense is it hidden? That they don't break it down, listing non-trans fat, and other types of fat?
Does transfat encourage weight gain, more than the 9 cal/gram of any fat?

It's not like they can include the transfat, and not list it as fat.

I want to be cautious about suing any foodstuff company, unless their product is outright tainted, because we've found in the last 5 years that some accepted dietary "truths" aren't so true. After all, it's our choice to eat the stuff.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[Phanatic1a]

They are provably not anything like a poison though.

Everything is like a poison. The difference between a poison and a non-poison is dosage.

You can overdose on water, and die from it. At sufficiently high pressures, oxygen becomes toxic to breathe.

Everything is like a poison.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing the US isn't #1 in is coming up with Ridiculous ranking systems which punish anyone who isn't spending money on items in the publishers agenda.
The U.S. does have the best Health System in the world, and no one is denied access to it because of inability to pay.
The Cuba line is a dead give-away as to the mindset of those who published the list.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[BgJonson79]

The US isn't about a system, it's about the individual. If you can afford it, you can easily get the best. The "system" isn't designed to be for the little guy, it's designed for the big fish.

And I'd rather die early than live a long time in Cuba, but that's just me ;-)

Re:trans fats not that bad

[thebagel]

Don't worry about the vase.

Re:trans fats not that bad

[glesga_kiss]

Looking at the same site, you can see the U.S.A. ranking #1 in motor vehicle accidents. So you see, your map does not correlate directly into health systems.

WTF? Of course they don't correlate directly! There are a gazillion factors in life expectancy. Lifestyle, diet, pollution. The nations drug addiction rate affects it. Could go on for hours here...

No it's not

[hawk]

It's getting toughter to file Chapter 7, not Chapter 11. And "tougher" under the new law means that if you have enough income that you could pay part (10%? 25%? I forget) of your debts over the next five years, you have to pay that much in a chapter 13 rather walking away in a chapter 7.

Nearly anyone or anything can file Chapter 11, but the creditors have to come out better than they would under chapter 7.

There's even a case where a housewife filed chapter 11, and the court found that she could do so (I never found out if she successfully reorganized).

[odd sitcom scene flashes into my head:
H: This place is always a mess when I come home. Why can't you ever clean?
W: Hah! I filed Chapter 11 today. I have 120 days just to submit a *plan* on how to reorganize! ]

:)

hawk, esq.

not quite

[hawk]

It's not due process, but a belief that the fear of costs would drive away meritious claims. (That I disagree with the rule, and prefer the "British Rule" of loser pays used in the rest of the Common Law/English speaking world, is irrelevant :)

The standards for sanctions for frivolous suits vary from state to state.

hawk, esq

Re:Bullets for spammers.

[SoundGuyNoise]

"You took four minutes of my life, and I want them back. Ohhh, I'd only waste them."
- Hans Moleman

Fight back

[narzy]

At what point do we get off the high road and start fighting a real fight against spammers crackers hackers virus writers and other unethical people. I think that it is time that we get down and start fighting at their level start using stronger preemptive tactics start shutting down their bot networks And start tracking the problem to its source and rooting it out. I think we can accomplish this by using distributed computing to scan networks a large for vulnerabilities Start using software to shut down these networks used for these activities.

Network operators need to get involved in recognizing the problem and participate in a solution

Uses a deep secure their systems from these types of attacks and participate in large scale network scans using their home personal computer in a large distributed network of computers

There needs to be a central resource available to everybody to combat these issues to filter ranges of addresses and notify those who are unknowingly involved In these negative activities.

I think that we need to enact legislation that allows us to do this legally.

Re:Fight back

[xMilkmanDanx]

Just need a "good" virus/worm writer to write the self replicating security exploiting bug that closes that same vulnerability off without opening up others. Of course, such a course of action would probably be just as illegal...

Can't access the documents in this case

[dtobias]

Unfortunately, all the documents related to this case, such as the court filings and the transcripts of various relevant conversations, etc., seem to be in a domain spammerpay.us which doesn't seem to be responding at the present time (slashdotted?), although some of the other sites related to the issue are functional. This makes it harder to get to the true facts of the case.

Yellow Journalism

[Mister Transistor]

This is what used to be called "Yellow Journalism". In fact, what color is the YRO theme here, anyway??

As always, the aptly named CAN-SPAM act

[highcon]

How clueless do legislators have to be to make an act which actually legitimizes spam? I have low hopes for US lawmakers to respond to increased corporate control of people's lives with legislation that protects the rights of citizens. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Why does this meme spread?

[rjh]

Let's put this in terms we can understand:

"The shoddy state of software today will last for as long as we have programmers. Because, after all, it's not in their interest for this state of affairs to end. If software becomes reliable, they're out of a job."

If someone were to come on Slashdot and say this, a few people would loudly agree with them and quickly get modded -1 Troll. A lot more people would accuse them of being arrogant, closedminded and just generally stupid. Of course many--most!--programmers want reliable software. The benefits to us of reliable software are myriad and manifold. No more calls at 2am on a Sunday because the server crashed. No more scouring BUGTRAQ looking for the next exploit we have to defend against. No more wondering whether the software flying the airplane we're riding on was written by lowest-bidders working in Bangalore.

The benefits to programmers from reliable software are so clear, so obvious, that we would laugh at anyone who seriously proposed that we deliberately kept software unreliable.

And yet, the instant you say lawyers are deliberately keeping the legal system difficult, people nod their heads understandingly and compliment you on your wisdom.

The benefits to a clean, efficient system of law are so huge and so obvious that, without exception, every single lawyer I know--and I know quite a lot of them--is an advocate for streamlining the legal system.

The problem is that society is huge. The machinery of government is truly gargantuan. These enormous edifices of government were put in place for a reason: because as obnoxious as they are, they're a lot better than what came before. (Take the Voting Rights Act as an example. It's a colossal piece of legislation and is a constant pain in the ass during election years. But it's a lot better than Jim Crow.)

So the problem Congress faces is, how do they pare government down and streamline it without returning us to the Bad Old Days we're trying so hard to avoid?

This is a tough, tough problem--all the moreso since the law is, almost by definition, a safety-critical system.

Imagine that you're given 100 million lines of source code. You're told, "Here. A lot of people are unhappy with it and they want major change right now. Oh, and while you're trying to strip out a few million lines and reduce bugcount, our coders are going to continue to write code to adjust to the ever-changing needs of our clients. Finally, remember that any bug you introduce has the potential to affect billions of people worldwide. Have a nice day!"

Please, try looking at the problem as a pragmatist and a realist, not with the simple and sophomoric eyes of a cheap cynic. The world is more complex, and a far richer place, than can ever be sufficiently explained with cheap cynicism.

Re:Why does this meme spread?

[rsd-17]

Please, try looking at the problem as a pragmatist and a realist, not with the simple and sophomoric eyes of a cheap cynic. The world is more complex, and a far richer place, than can ever be sufficiently explained with cheap cynicism.

Point taken, but the original comment was more about the kind of lawyers who become legislators rather than a blanket condemnation of all lawyers. Based on their track records, a healthy dose of cynicism regarding politicians and legislators is warranted IMHO.

Re:Why does this meme spread?

[rjh]

Occam's razor is a more reliable guide than cynicism. Do you need to assume bad motives on the part of politicians to explain why we have such trouble getting government under control?

No, absolutely not. The problem domain is large enough to explain it by itself.

So why are we assuming bad motives on the part of politicians to explain why we have such trouble getting government under control?

Occam's Razor says we shouldn't.

There are a lot of things I for which I think we can surmise bad motives on the part of politicians--but the legal system of this country isn't one of them, I don't think. Not without running afoul of Occam, at least.

Let Omega know your feelings

[mikehilly]

You can contact Dan Bohan, Chief Operating Office. His phone number is 703-359-8866. www.owt.net/tabs/aboutus/staff/dan_bohan_bio.html Couldn't find an email for them.

Enjoy! :-)

Bull

[CarrionBird]

What pamphlet did you pull that tripe from? It doesn't take much looking to disprove this crap.

interesting business model

[UpsideUp]

So I read through this thread, and I read through the sites hosted by Mark Mumma. He really is very smart. Rather than put up with an industry where it is difficult to make a profit, he maintains the hosting facade and decides he wants to become a victim and start chasing ambulances. He successfully pulls it off on several occasions. Then he solicits "our $ help" because it costs a lot to fight injustices. I am all for less spam, but please don't paint yourself as a hero. What I see is that your business has a three-fold business strategy. 1. Host small businesses 2. Sue Spammers 3. solicit donations

You've misread his website.

[aug24]

He says that when you get spam (completely unsolicited), click on it and fill in unique (thus fake) details. Then when you are contacted you can link the company to the spam.

Next: why should he comply with their opt-out procedure. Had you read the article carefully, you would see that he talking about spam that he certainly did not opt in to, merely responded to.

I hope and expect he will win.

Justin.

+75, Funny As Hell

[EvilStein]

I think that I should sue you now. That press release was funny enough to make me spew coffee all over my PowerBook. I demand you pay for the cleaning bill. :P~

What do you propose?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the functions of the legal system is to separate legitimate claims from bogus claims. But, to do so, the case has to be filed--it has to enter the system.

You apparently would like the verification to happen before the case gets to the legal system at all. How would you propose doing that? What new mechanism will investigate each claim for merit? And if it occurs at no cost to either party, who will pay for it?

It's easy to complain when you don't have to think too hard. But the fact is our legal system does very complex and difficult things, and for the most part does them very well.

Worked for cruise.com

[theskunkmonkey]

I worked for Omega World Travel in their "web" department and worked specifically on the cruise.com property. This was a number of years ago just before the DotCom bust. I had the chance to work directly with the owner Gloria Bohan and her husband Daniel Bohan. It's a woman owned biz on paper, he really runs the show. At the time I worked there, they had not yet grapsed the concepts of the internet well yet, but had very hot properties (cruise.com) that were pulling in very lucrative money from what I gathered. They were expending large sums in purcashing domains and had plans to grow the division. They did recognize the potential of the internet market, but had a very poor understanding of technical details at the time. I was originally hired to increase their standings in search engines and design banners for advertising. I used the usual techniqes of the day including keyword stuffing to get better positioning. Of course this included using some names of competitors. To show you how clueless the owner was at the time, he saw the competitors name in the keywords during a weekly meeting and proceeded to whine (yes, he whined like a child, stamped his feet, and had tantrums) about his competitor showing in the keywords. I attempted to explain the reasons and was told I didn't know what I was doing (the main reason I was hired), to remove the keywords, and go back to my office. Suffice to say that was my last day on the job. Now I read this article and I am not suprised one bit by the actions of cruise.com and OWT. I am sure that once Dan grasped the concept of email solicitaion the flood gates were opened. To see that he has been stupid enough to direct his legal department to follow this course of action is about par for him. He still dosen't fully understand the whole picture. I sure hope the people I worked with there have been smart enough to move on.

Re:Easy slashdot phone #'s and addresses

[Chas]

The BBB is a fucking joke.

Essentially it's just a front to maintain an appearance of respectability.

All offenders have to do is respond with "No. He's wrong." and the BBB just bobble-heads and dismisses it.

And capitalism extists....

[abulafia]

...where?

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis. Merely pointing out that you'll have to get rid of people before you can have "real" capitalism. People == influence peddling, and always has, from the hypothetical caveman who didn't know why he wanted to bash the skulls of other sperm producers on through the alumni associations of modern day private schools. Of course, we're a little more subtle these days, at least most of the time.

Amen!!!

[www.sorehands.com]

I sued Avtech, in small claims, but they kept spamming. When we had our court hearing on January 3, 2005 I served them 20 other small claims cases -- their spam seemed to stop.

There is power in numbers. That is why I post the information on spammers, so that others can sue.

By sharing information and working with others to sue spammers, we can put a dent in spam.

so what this country boils down to...

[megarich]

bases on this case, the next time my boss requests me to do something I can sue him? sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet :)

Better Business Bureau

[kidlinux]

Anyone else notice the BBB logo at the bottom of cruise.com's website?

I wonder if the BBB knows what's goin on here, and if they have any rules against unsolicited email. It might help Mumma's case if the BBB has logged any complaints against cruise.com for spamming.

could be because

[budgenator]

that's the where they are are;
Omega World Travel, Inc.
3102 Omega Office Park
Fairfax, VA 22031.

Re:could be because

[jebell]

Yes, but I don't know that the defendant in this case has the requisite minimum contacts for the court to assert in personam jurisdiction over him.

Generally, a court may only assert jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant has the requisite "minimum contacts" with the forum state. This may be satisfied in a number of ways, the most common of which are residency or doing business in the forum state. As far as I can tell, the only minimum contact I see is that he published the information in Virginia via his web site. I am not knowledgable in this area of law, so I have no idea if this is a good-enough minimum contact or if there is some other basis by which the court can assert personal jurisdiction over him.

Of course, if I were able to download the pleadings I might be able to tell you, but it appears as though they are unavailable at the moment.

Re:could be because

[bambam1648]

I'm a lawyer and internet contact is not remotely close to enough to get jurisdiction over him. There are several factors as the parent stated above, and since the defendant is not a resident and has no brick and morter business set up in that state barring tricking him into the court house or his waiver and reply in court they can't touch him.

Look up "cruise.com" in Google News

[Animats]

"Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million".

Their domain (their main asset) just became less valuable.

Counter Suit

[nhlfoda]

I think what's important to note here, is the following:

"The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea"

As long as lobbies such as this are permitted to exist, the general public a large is always going to get the shaft...

Those entities with time and money to burn are always going to forge alliances with those who possess little to no moral or ethical values and are only motivated by how much money they can put in their pocket.

If this were not the case, our public airwaves would not be polluted with the stupid pointless marketing of legal firms willing to file suit at the drop of a hat.

Just my $.02

rtfa

[boarder]

"The plaintiff in this suit is suing because the defendant reported the plaintiff's violation of the law."

I believe YOU'VE missed the point, actually. How about you actually read wtf is really going on before posting stupid bullshit.

From TFA:
"Omega World Travel has argued that Mumma violated their trademark and copyright by using images of the company's founders and the company's logo on his website, and they also allege that Mumma defamed individuals associated with Cruise.com by posting personal insults on his site."

The guy had a website where he insulted them, posted images of them, threatened them with what amounts to entrapment, and used copyrighted logos.

Sure, what he did was fine in my book, but it might not be legal in the U.S. His biggest mistake was to use their logo in his page. Also, he should've just gone through the courts first, then made a website talking about them (that way it can't be considered defamation if the courts found them guilty of it).

Duh

[WaR.KiN]

Who in their right mind would get legal advice from the web??? I get mine from watching Judge Judy.

Just like SCO

[Mr. Underbridge]

Just like the judge smacked down the frivolous SCO lawsuit?

Yep. Have you seen what the judge has said to them? IBM has carried virtually all the relevant motions, and the judge has made very pointed comments about SCO's lack of anything resembling evidence. That said, there are procedures that must be followed. I think the judge is fed up with SCO, but is making sure to avoid pulling a Jackson and getting overturned on appeal due to obvious bias.

Omegs World Travel

[tin foil hat dude]

http://home.owt.net/ ZERO SECURITY Their internal e-mail is wide open, there are internal selections for various other things also. One I found interesting was where I could get a password for a logon sent to an email adress if it was forgotten. So using one of their employees e-mails you may want to request that your password be sent to you a couple (hundred thousand) times. that ought to interest them---spam sent from their own server to themselves.

Re:Pamphlet?

[CarrionBird]

Yeah that's an unbiased source of opinion on the subject (sarcasm).

Try looking around. Try looking at all the baseless lawsuits that pop up, like this one. There's even a term for this type: SLAPP.

Sometimes...

[JetFox]

Sometimes I think the Amish have it good. No Website is going to sue them...

Any other activists?

[RM6f9]

contact them and let them know how much they lose - post a link to the /. story in your comment, at this link: owt.net I did.

I don't think he's the bully

[Lifewish]

The spammers are genuinely breaking the law here, and in a generally unpleasant way. The only possible legal justification I can think of for breaking Oklahoma state law is that they didn't know Mumma lived in Oklahoma (email addresses being relatively hard to pinpoint), but that defence ended when he rang up and told them to stop.

Spam is a classic case of the few playing silly buggers with the many, and the spammers are being called on this. I think it's deserved.

Re:I don't think he's the bully

[arbitraryaardvark]

If there is no law, they aren't breaking it. A statute is not a law - a distinction that may be lost on some slashdotters. The oklohoma statute would not be a law if it conflicted with the oklahoma bill of rights free speech provision, or if it is pre-empted by federal law, as alleged in the suit, or if it is unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause. The general rule, ALA v. Pataki, is that states, villages, and condominium assocations can't outlaw the internet - only congress has jurisdiction. According to the complaint, they stopped spamming him once he gave them his email.

Mod Parent Up

[JuggleGeek]

That's fairly important info, there.

Institute of Medicine says different

[jvance]

If you read the IOM's report on trans fatty acids, they state that intake should be held as low as possible. The only reason they did not recommend 0 grams a day explicitly is because it would be practically impossible to eat that way. About half the different varieties of packaged foods in supermarkets contain trans fat.

The "recommendation" of 2 grams a day is due to the above factors, as well as political pressure from the food industry.

Now for the food labeling example you give, the gram amounts on labels are rounded. The label may say this:
3g total fat
1g unsaturated
1g saturated

when the actual amounts to two significant digits are this:
3.4g total fat
0.6g unsaturated
0.6g saturated

giving 2.2 grams of trans fat.

Besides which, there is no requirement to label unsaturated fat content, so you're usually left in the dark. I just avoid foods that list partially hydrogenated oils in their ingredients.

Re:Bullets for spammers.

[Grishnakh]

People like this are the reason why the general community can't take the open source community seriously.

WTF?? When did this guy ever claim to be a representative, or even a user, of open-source? Half the people here on Slashdot are Microsoft fanboys and shills, and another large fraction are Mac zealots. People like you are the reason that racism and sexism have been such a problem throughout human history: people constantly want to over-generalize other people. What other stereotypes do you hold dear?

This kind of attitude reminds me of North Korea's treatment of dissenters and USSR's general attitude towards human life.

There's a big difference here. Spammers actively harass people. Dissenters don't; they just want to sit around and talk about how things should be, and they try to convince other people they're right using appropriate avenues. They don't usually break into people's homes and throw flyers at them, or nail flyers on their front doors or tape flyers on their windows. In short, they don't make a nuisance of themselves to most people. Furthermore, dissenters want to improve peoples' lives. Spammers just want to steal peoples' money. Spammers are parasites with nothing constructive to add to society.

Honestly, who would be sad if all the spammers suddenly disappeared? While I can't agree with the parent poster's methods, as they would be a slippery slope to abuses, I can certainly understand his reasoning and frustration. I can also agree that much stronger measures are needed to stop this parasitic behavior, for the good of all of society.

The obviously question

[grolschie]

There is a form on the front page of cruise.com that says "Enter your email for weekly edeals". Couldn't some miscreant have entered this guys email address every other day as a prank or act of revenge of sorts? I know that a common revenge technique these days is to sign someone up for as much junkmail as you can (although nothing is quite as effective as posting the email address on usenet). If so, their removal of his email address would by futile, as it would be kept being re-added the next day or so.

Propoganda

[defnshow]

Is it only me or does the article have an incredible bias? Calling the man a victim and so forth. Tell the story let me decide the victim.

Re:Bullets for spammers.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People like this are the reason why[sic] the general community can't take the open source community seriously."

Firstly: people don't take open source seriously? On my planet, open source is taken quite seriously and doing very well. Tip: Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Netcraft, etc.... Is this your first time on Slashdot, or have you simply not been paying attention?

Secondly: what makes you think the original poster is associated in any way with open source? What in the world made you make that association? For all you know, that post was written by an old lady sitting in an internet cafe in Dakar - what is causing you to make these unwarranted mental leaps?

"What kind of horrible thinking can possibly lead someone to want to murder another person just beucase[sic] you are receiving spam from them?"

Didn't you read the whole post? The thinking is explicitly spelled out right there. Do you have problems with comprehension?

"I may not like our current government in the USA, but in comparison to the type of tyranny and brutal violence that this person is advocating, I certianly[sic] am glad we do not have someone even more utterly evil and inhuman."

What in the WORLD does this have to do with the original post? Couldn't you at least try to stay on topic?

"This kind of attitude reminds me of North Korea's treatment of dissenters and USSR's general attitude towards human life."

As another poster has pointed out, there's a world of difference between an evil government's abuse of honest citizens and an honest person's desire to rid himself of an evil parasite.

Honestly! Please learn how to think before you speak in public, and while you're at it, brush up on your spelling and grammar, too. People like you are the reason they shouldn't connect trailer parks to the internet. :-P

John Lawless?

[icleprechauns]

"The filing was accompanied by a Motion for Sanctions against John Lawless, opposing party's counsel and General Counsel of Omega World Travel, Inc."

Anyone else find it ironic that the guy's last name is Lawless?

0:)

you know as well as I do why the meme spreads

[alizard]

It spreads because it reflects people's experience and the news, pretty much regardless of where people get their news.

You're telling us essentially, that laws are created by public servants whose only interest is the public good, and that these public servants get their campaign funding from corporations whose only interest is making the USA or wherever a better place to live?

Like to explain to us how the DMCA or the bankruptcy bill or laws forbidding municipalities to build their own broadband services even where there is no interest by private companies are doing so fits your version of how and why law is made?

Do you think nobody here knows about campaign financing detabases like OpenSecrets where we can find out for ourselves who are buying our poiiticians? "The good of the public" is the least likely motivation for a law to be passed.

The public contempt for the legal profession exists because it is deserved, and the people in law who deserve most contempt are the people who make it. As for why most legislators are lawyers... in general, an election gives the voter the choice between lawyers for any statewide or Federal public office.

Just as in the Soviet Union, one could vote for the Communist of one's choice.

Re:you know as well as I do why the meme spreads

[rjh]

You're telling us ... that laws are created by public servants whose only interest is the public good...

Please read what I wrote, not what you want me to have written. Nowhere did I claim laws are created by public servants whose only interest is the public good. Humanity, as a rule, is fallible. We screw up. Legislators as much as the next guy.

I only claimed that it was unnecessary to posit bad motives on the part of lawmakers, an assumption which requires us to assess things we cannot see (namely, their hearts and minds), when a perfectly sufficient explanation exists in the form of something we can see. That's Occam's Razor for you.

I'm a classical cynic. That means, among other things, I have little patience for modern cynicism, which is as ersatz as it is shallow. You're a modern cynic. If you wish to be that way, fine.

But those of us who have not sold our souls to a belief in humanity's worst are quietly working to achieve humanity's best. Why don't you join us?

Re:you know as well as I do why the meme spreads

[alizard]

I'm a classical cynic. That means, among other things, I have little patience for modern cynicism, which is as ersatz as it is shallow. You're a modern cynic.

Your basis of criticism of "modern cynicism" appears to be that it's reality-based, i.e. based on making reasonable inferences based on the observable behavior of real people.

My viewpoint is based on real examples of the actions of real people along with a URL where the motivations of those real people can readily be ascertained.

Your post appears to be based on ninth-grade civics classes with an implicit plea "have patience, it's very hard to do this sort of thing right." while the available evidence shows that by and large, few if any legislators have interest in doing things "right" for the majority of their consituents or alternately, limit the definition of "constituent" to major campaign contributor.

While reality-based cynicism may be ersatz and shallow by your standards, at least I don't have to resort to elaborate rationalizations to support it.

But those of us who have not sold our souls to a belief in humanity's worst are quietly working to achieve humanity's best. Why don't you join us?

I'm working on an alternative energy project relating to biofuel and I've gotten far enough that I'm looking for development funding. What are you producing besides hot air?

Re:you know as well as I do why the meme spreads

[rjh]

Your basis of criticism of 'modern cynicism' appears to be that it's reality-based

Not in the least. Again, you're reading what you want me to have written--not what I wrote. I'm a cynic in the manner of Diogenes, who was a big believer in realism. However, modern cynicism has gone far astray from Diogenes; it has become shallow and puerile.

Your post appears to be based on ninth-grade civics classes with an implicit plea "have patience, it's very hard to do this sort of thing right"

Again, you're reading what you want to have read, not what I wrote. I never said we should have patience. In fact, I think rather the opposite. I think we should keep a steady drumbeat in the ears of our legislators, that we want a streamlined system, and we're willing to vote them out of office if they don't provide it.

It is, however, very difficult to do this sort of thing right. Or do you dispute that?

What are you producing besides hot air?

More than that. I won't bore you, because on the Internet anyone can claim to be doing anything. There is one thing I'm producing, though, which I think you would be well-served to consider:

Civility.

General Counsel for Omega...

[AngryElmo]

1. Does anyine find it amusing that the General Counsel for the spammer is called John J Lawless?

2. Does anyone find this post to be a repeat or redundant? If so mod me down.

spammer?

[mark]

this has become a fucking lynch mob and it's fucking disgusting.

can anyone show ANY proof that cruise.com is a spammer?

i mean "proof". i know that mumma is /calling/ them spammers. but i've yet to see - in all these postings - anyone show that cruise.com has intentionally send unsolicited email, except this ONE SINGLE CASE from which the recipient intends to profit.

imagine - just for a moment - that cruise.com is innocent (i know it's hard for you to do this, but just try). imagine that mumma's address was put on the list by someone else.

remember that mumma NEVER GAVE HIS ADDRESS TO THE LAWYER for removal.

now consider what cruise.com would have to do to protect themselves. what the fuck could they do?

if crusie.com is innocent, then mumma has defamed them (the basis of the lawsuit) and the consequences of this defamation are this fucked-up lynch mob here at /. (and also over at ars). with rabid /. and ars readers ignoring everything except the fucking headline, their business is being ripped apart and their poor staff are being called and abused, their office network has been 0wn3d.

before you assert that "mumma asked to be removed from the list", read the fucking transcript. he NEVER GIVES CRUISE.COM HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, not even on the phone.

as far as i can see you're all blowing hot air out of your collective asses. read the fucking web site, read the transcript, and tell me why cruise.com deserves to be reamed when mumma didn't even attempt to provide his email address for removal. we all know that he could have been added by someone else (mumma, as an ISP, should also know this).

and finally, how the hell is this a SLAPP lawsuit?? mumma is not participating in a public debate, he is privately suing a company. how the hell is that "public participation"? if you want to see a REAL SLAPP lawsuit then check out http://www.greens.org.au/ and search for "gunns".

Re:spammer?

[Archimboldo]

By the same token, show me any evidence from cruise.com that they tried a less heavy-handed approach than a $4,000,000 lawsuit. It cuts both ways. I hold this guy innocent of the $4,000,000 million law suit until proven guilty - not the reverse. As far as a "lynch mob" mentality, I have to say that anger against spammers is quite understandable. An occasional mistaken reaction here and there by spam recipients doesn't compare with the voluminous damage done by scumbag spammers. Why do you single out this guy and not mention anything negative about the plethora of #@#!@#$% spammers?

Umm, yes there are FDA regs

[KarmaOverDogma]

"There are no FDA regulations that say you have to show the amount of transfatty acids, unlike everything else you see in the package."

Oh?

Maybe not, but there will be as of Januray 1, 2006:

http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/

This is why you see more and more products in the grocry store advertising: "Contains NO transfats!" or something to that effect (instead, look for it's evil twin: modified food starch).

Until January 1, 2006, the easiet way to tell if your favorite junk-food, er, I mean food product, contains trans fats is by looking at the list of ingredients. If it says anywhere on that list "partially hydrogenated X" (where X is basically anything) congratulations! It's got trans-fats!

The FDA has been under considerable pressure to enact this regulation for years, but it delayed having the regulation take effect until the year 2006 in order to allow the food lobby *cough, cough* I meant to say food industry, time to adjust their food content to find a viable alternative to trans-fats, which have the convenient holy trinity of:

A) making foods taste good
B) being very cheap
C) acting as a preservative

There is no free lunch: Eat less, exercise more, eat more greens, less meat and less fat.

Re:Umm, yes there are FDA regs

[goatan]

There is no free lunch: Eat less, exercise more, eat more greens, less meat and less fat.

True except for eating less meat and more greens as that would reduce the amount of protein per calories your eating making you feel more hungry. Eat a bit more lean meat than normal and you will feel fuller quicker resulting in eating less calories and eating less food (there are ways to get protein without meat but it is the easiest).

Also ignore the latest fad of low carb's and not worrying about the fat ala Atkins diet its complete rubbish, protein is the key.

Re:Perfectly understandable; what's the problem?

[crusher-1]

Moron! The federal law - aka CAN-SPAM act is not an obscure law (that is unless you live in a cave, bury your head in the sand, have a selective memory or are just plain stupid). I mean do you actually think that your position is defensible? (it's rhetorical you dweb - of course you think it's defensible - Res Ipso Liquator, that's latin moron for "the thing speaks of itself - that's another legel term fyi).

I, along with a few hundred million other internet user don't like getting an endless stream of junk emails (aka "SPAM") that often get hijacked by blackhats (if you don't know what that term means - learn to use google you idiot) in order to vector themselves covertly around the net, plant trojans, etc... It's mentalites such as yours that have turned the internet into a security breach waiting to happen - and actually how much business does it really generate? Statistics show that this form of solicitation to be the least effect and often ends up having the opposite effect that it was intended to - but thats ok I guess, as long as you make a buck right? And who cares if it's "legal" or not - it's just a white collar crime after all, not like anyone "really" gets hurts... RIGHT!

sue that bastard

[diesel25]

he is my x brother in law.. dude is a prick...

Napoleonic Code,

[falconwolf]

French civil law is based on the Napoleonic Code, not common law. It's quite different.

Forget that, the state who has more power usually, should have to proof guilt.

Falcon

Louisiana

[falconwolf]

Interestingly, the state of Louisiana supposedly has a similar system.

Louisiana was French, which still influences the culture, Cajuns or Acadians were French Canadians who settled in Lousiana, Creoles who also settled in Louisiana are French or mixed French as well.

Falcon

libel

[falconwolf]

The guy had a website where he insulted them, posted images of them, threatened them with what amounts to entrapment, and used copyrighted logos.

Sure, what he did was fine in my book, but it might not be legal in the U.S. His biggest mistake was to use their logo in his page. Also, he should've just gone through the courts first, then made a website talking about them (that way it can't be considered defamation if the courts found them guilty of it).

As far as insults are concerned, all they could or should get him with is libel, where he specifically and knowingly published lies about them which is a hard thing to prove. The use of logos involves trademarks not copyrights. I think when a logo is used in it's natural state and isn't used in a libelous or slanderous manner and is not used commmercially it is fair use.

Falcon

I noticed the language was ambiguous.

[falconwolf]

I've had a number of people here, and there, ask me where I'm from because they can't identify my accent. This is in part because I've intentionally tried to cultivate a neutral accent, well really what we called the BBC accent, since I was little. Now I know my verbal accent isn't heard online so the only accent that can be picked up is my writing. Here I don't always use the "regular" or normal American English spelling, for instance I use "tyme", an Old English spelling, for "time". "Color" I spell "colour".

Falcon