Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules That I Own Slashdot

Bennett Haselton wrote in with this weeks amusing and shocking story of high finance, judicial discretion, and oh so much more... he writes "People still ask me if I make enough money suing spammers in Small Claims court to make it worthwhile. I say: What about the entertainment value? Recently I received an e-mail with the subject line: 'Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org' Finally, I thought, someone else who agrees that I'm carrying the site's entire success on my shoulders. I even hurried off to check the registration of the slashdot.org domain to see if they had made the transfer official in honor of my contributions, but apparently the domain is still being squatted by some outfit calling itself "SourceForge"." I'm shocked that a legitimate businessman would make such an error. Read on to see what Bennett does about it.

So I returned to the e-mail, which began, "Dear Webmaster". Scrolling through it, I found the part that I was looking for (I munged the sender's URL slightly, to avoid crashing the poor guy's server from all the traffic I'm sure he's already getting):

As you know, reciprocal linking benefits both of us by raising our search rankings and generating more traffic to both of our sites. Please post a link to my site as follows:

Title: Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training
URL: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/
Description: Your Source, and Resource for starting a Home Business, or Growing the One You're In.

Of course I am always interested in growing the business that I'm in, which is why I served him with papers a few days later under RCW 19.190, the Washington anti-spam law which prohibits e-mails with a "false or misleading subject line".

OK, technically at this point suing spammers in Small Claims is really more of a hobby. I still think that the real future of spammer-suing is in federal court, if you can amass enough damages against a particular company to reach the threshold of $75,000 to bring a federal lawsuit. The idea is not to go after the bottom-feeders who are sending the actual spams from their Mom's basement, but to follow the money and see who is ultimately buying the leads. You can respond to mortgage spams by entering a drop-box phone number and a made-up name, waiting to see who calls you, and then telling them that the person who sold them that lead is generating them illegally and that they shouldn't buy leads from them any more. Next I'll probably try responding to some ads for pills or other shady products by using a temporary one-time-use credit card number that's only authorized up to the amount of the purchase, to see which companies are doing the sales on the back end. (The checkout forms for those pill-hawking pages rarely say the name of the company that will end up on your statement, but the charge on your card has to be from someone.) The only types of spam I can think of where "following the money" wouldn't work, would be pump-and-dump stock spams -- in that case, the beneficiary could be anyone holding stock in the company. The SEC can freeze trading in stocks that are promoted in pump-and-dump but it's still no guarantee of catching the guilty party -- even someone who buys a lot of the company might just be an "innocent" third party who knows it's a scam but hopes to cash in on the price spike (although FAQs suggest that this strategy doesn't work). But for other types of spam, it's already been well documented how you can track it to the financiers without even trying to identify the actual person who pressed "Send".

Of course there's another reason why you'd rather be in federal court. Small Claims anti-spammer cases may not shed a lot of light on the economics behind spam, but they are instructive for what to expect if you ever appear before a District Court judge for any other reason. In this trial, heard by Judge Judith Eiler on November 5, 2007, the defendant telephoned in to the court hearing and said several times that this was a "personal e-mail from me to him" and should be exempt from the anti-spam laws. I said that I didn't think an e-mail with the subject "Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org" could be considered "personal" since nobody who knew me would think that was my website, and in any case, personal e-mails tend not to start with "Dear Webmaster". But Judge Eiler ruled that this was a personal e-mail after all:

"Um, spam, these are anti-spam laws, which imply that they are mail just sent out in huge bulks, which would be the antithesis of a personal e-mail. And here he puts his name, in fact this is the person that you directly sued rather than somebody that's in a corporation or a company. The court does think that there's some indication that this is a personal-type e-mail. While it may have gone out to a number of people, it doesn't have quite the earmarks."
mp3 here

Below is a copy of the e-mail that the judge was holding when she ruled that it "didn't have the earmarks" of a bulk e-mail:

To: bennett@peacefire.org Subject: Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org X-PHP-Script: www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/auto.php for 87.102.22.100 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:34:26 -0400 From: Roderick Eash Reply-to: reash@tconl.com Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: PHPMailer [version 1.72] Errors-To: reash@tconl.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1_b43cabef83c9f9123db7a78ef9a73362" Dear Webmaster, My name is Roderick Eash, and I run the web site Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/ The other day I wrote you to let you know I'm very interested in exchanging links. I'm sending this reminder in case you didn't receive my first letter. I've gone ahead and posted a link to your site, on this page: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/resources/resources_home_based_business_41.html As you know, reciprocal linking benefits both of us by raising our search rankings and generating more traffic to both of our sites. Please post a link to my site as follows: Title: Work At Home Business Opportunities | Online Career Training URL: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/ Description: Your Source, and Resource for starting a Home Business, or Growing the One You're In. Once you've posted the link, let me know the URL of the page that it's on, by entering it in this form: http://www.theeashblahblah.com/linkmachine/resources/link_exchange.php?ua=_ua9&site_index=MTg4MTgwMjc%3D You can also use that form to make changes to the text of the link to your site, if you'd like. Thank you very much, Roderick Eash

Every time I write about a spam case, I swear it's the last time. I wonder if judges read that and say to each other, "I'll bet we can get him to do it again." With this ruling, if the subject line "Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org" is not "false or misleading", does that mean I can claim slashdot.org as my site after all?

So I don't think that suing spammers in Small Claims will make much difference in the long run. But the odds are that you might have a case come before a Distict Court judge at some point in your life. Consider that the same type of judge who thought the message above was a "personal e-mail", might someday be deciding whether you're responsible for $10,000 in damage to someone's car, or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty of rape, or whether you get to keep custody of your child. There's no joke here, just something I thought you should keep in mind.

So I'm hardly a victim, but it could have been worse; I could have gotten a spam -- excuse me, a personal e-mail -- with a subject like "Your g1rl says you n3ed a b1gger m3mber". I would have been pissed if the judge had ruled that subject line was not misleading.

27 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. well by normuser · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our new slashdot overlord.

    sorry, I had to do it.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    XXX#######
    1. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      sorry, I had to do it.

      No. No, you didn't actually.

    2. Re:well by Garridan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, he did. Our new slashdot overlord command him to.

    3. Re:well by ehrichweiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your slashdot are belong to us!

      In Soviet Russia spam judges slashdot!

      I got nothing.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    4. Re:well by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Ah, that's what I love about Slashdot:

      Score:-1, Insightful

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:well by Thexare+Blademoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then please explain how this ridiculous "overlord" cliché can be rocketed to +5 Funny for certain topics but will be shot down to -1 Redundant for others

      Perhaps the fact that there's more than one person with moderation points?

    6. Re:well by toriver · · Score: 2, Funny

      Want some goatse with GNAA?

  2. This entire story by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    reads like the body of a SPAM message - divorced of context and nearly indecipherable syntax.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:This entire story by suggsjc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a feeling that the AC post was written by a mid-UID'er that is caught between both sides. A novice (php) programmer who just moved out from his parent's basement, which is why they still enjoy the free music conversations because...well, rent ain't cheap. They enjoy the jabs at the real nerds because it makes their own failed attempts at interactions with the opposite sex seem suave and debonair. On the other hand, they like the dumbed down technical conversations but their eyes glaze over once anything moves to a more theoretical and/or low-level discussion...at which point they throw in the standard Soviet Russia joke or "but does it run..." or if all else fails a not so snarky shot at "M$"

      There, now we've complained about everyone.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  3. I am totally confused by rbanzai · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just what in blue blazes is his story about? I tried reading the whole thing and it still makes no sense to me. Who is this guy? What does he have to do with Slashdot? Is this just some kind of weird fiction that's supposed to be funny?

    I'm baffled.

    1. Re:I am totally confused by PinkyDead · · Score: 2, Funny

      I get that bit. But who's this CmdrTaco chap.

      --
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  4. Re:Huh? by timster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dumb judge rules that a spam message was a "personal e-mail" exempt from anti-spam laws on the basis that it was written as if the spammer knew the recipient. So watch out for dumb judges in your rape trial!

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  5. For some reason.. by Selfbain · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a vision of you standing on a street corner shouting this post at passing vehicles.

    --
    Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  6. Where's part 1 of the story? by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Funny

    The part that would explain who is who and that would tie this story together so that it made actual sense.

    I'll take dups to good stories over this nonsensical submission anyday.

  7. SPERM CASE? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this something you need to expand, strengthen and elongate upon?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  8. Writer's strike! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is what happens when you try to both write and direct...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Writer's strike! by techpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is what we get for the writers being on strike.

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    2. Re:Writer's strike! by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is what we get for the writers being on strike.

      Wow, what a long strike. What is it, something like 50 years now?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  9. To Whom It May Concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear CmdrTaco,

    Please inform me where I may be able to get the last 3 minutes of my life back. I know it's not a lot of time but life is short and this is a horrible way to have wasted the precious time we have on this planet.

    Thank you.

  10. The important question is: by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

    When is SourceForge going to return slashdot.org to Bennett Haselton? And what can we do about unscrupulous domain squatters in the future?

  11. Bennett Haselton by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1, Funny

    Am I the only one who thinks the name Bennett Haselton sounds like a hedge fund, or maybe a purveyor of fine quality marmalades which grace the breakfast tables of the discerning?

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  12. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm not logging in until I can spend karma to replace the summary with this person's comment.

  13. No coincidence by marcus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some of us were involved in the construction of this mess called "The Internet". We feel responsible.

    --
    Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
    - W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
    1. Re:No coincidence by cthulu_mt · · Score: 2, Funny

      So you're one of the codgers who didn't feel the need to install the extra wide gauge "tubes".
      Way to be short sighted.


      I kid...

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    2. Re:No coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Possible subject lines:

      • Increase the size of your tube
      • Your girlfriend says the tube you installed isn't a wide enough gauge
      • A tube larger than the sun (something similar to this actually showed up in my spam folder)
  14. Re:Huh? by Sleeping+Kirby · · Score: 2, Funny

    So I should expect to hear soon, "I rule that this wasn't a case of rape. This was surprise sex."?

    --
    please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
  15. Re:Judges. by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Funny

    IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, there is no formation of attorney client privilege, this does not serve as an offer to represent you, your family, or anyone you have ever met, consult the advice of a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before taking any action, the forgoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and any and all warranties inherent in this post whether express or implied are hereby disclaimed. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?