Slashdot Mirror
Judge In e360 Vs. Comcast Rules e360 a Spammer
Brielle Bruns writes "Yesterday, Judge James B. Zagel dismissed claims against Comcast by e360. In the decision, the judge says: 'Plaintiff e360Insight, LLC is a marketer. It refers to itself as an Internet marketing company. Some, perhaps even a majority of people in this country, would call it a spammer.' This clears the path for Comcast's counter-suit." e360 is the spammer that got a default judgement against Spamhaus, as we have discussed on numerous occasions.
I get snail mail advertisements all the time; to me they are spam. What's the difference between unsoliticed snail-mail marketing and unsolicited email 'spam'?
Where does this leave spamhaus v. e360 though?
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
But... (and IANAL)
It sounded like the judge said, basically, that the stated claims were invalid, but that the unmade claim of bad faith action by comcast may have a chance.
I've had several cases where comcast has silently blocked e-mail sent to me, where I specifically wanted to receive those e-mails.
If this is one of those companies that sends an advertisement with that little opt-out link at the bottom which is more likely to get you even more spam, then I'm all for Comcast blocking them. If this company (and I have not researched it, so I don't know much about it) does indeed require response to an opt-in e-mail prior to sending additional material, then comcast shouldn't be blocking them.
I am suing e360Insight for illegal spamming. http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm
In their failed summary judgment motion (asking the court to dismiss the case based on some evidence), they claim that the spam I tracked to them is not theirs, but it must be someone trying to make them look bad because: 1. They don't spam; 2. That it could have been created in a word processor using publically available information; 3. They don't format their e-mails that way; 4. That it did not come from their IP addresses.
e360 ignored that they have used Atriks, which hides the true IP address by running it through a sort of legal botnet. They also ignored that they use anonymous domain name registrations, so I must have been a good guesser to get most of the domain names correct (their co-Defendant, Moniker, admitted that most of the domain names I identified to e360 were registered through them to bargaindepot.net -- their sister company/codefendant).
Fight Spammers!
Monday (4/7/2008), I had two motion hearings against e360. One was their summary judgment motion to kick their my case against them, the other was my anti-SLAPP motion against their counterclaim.
Entire details at http://www.barbieslapp.com/spam/e360/e360insight.htm
Their counterclaim is for calling libel (calling them a spammer and liar) and abuse of process (asking for their domain names in discovery). At the hearing struck/dismissed their abuse of process claim, and said that their paying my attorney fees for the motion is mandatory. The tentative did not strike the libel claim, but she said she would look into that further as the court needed to investigate if the supplemental request for judicial notice, containing articles quoting Linhardt in the press (Cnet and NY Times, DirectMag.com) is sufficient for limited purpose public figure status.
She denied their summary judgment motion on my claims against e360. Mostly because e360 refused to provide discovery to me, but relied upon that information in their motion. On the my libel claim against them, she denied that, except the portion saying that he implied that I hacked into his system.
Fight Spammers!
I semi-followed that story, but my question was more: why don't vigilantes go after everyone who shows their face in public as aiding spammers or spamming? The BlueFrog thing was all online activities.
... we do not see this. Spammers and their attorneys do in fact show their faces.
What I'm getting at is, there should be legions of people who hate spam with a passion. While I don't advocate violent vigilante attacks against spammers (so please don't hit me with the "your post advocates a (x) vigilante...), I would imagine that there are enough people ready/willing/able, that every time a spammer *or their attorneys* actually show their faces, then *bam* next thing you know they're a victim of several pranks, get death threats, families threatened, law firms threatened, litigants followed out of court and intimidated, etc etc etc ad infinitum.
I would futher imagine that by this point, spammers would be so afraid of showing their faces, that they would do everything possible to avoid a court appearance, and thus lose every case actually making it to a hearing, by default.
Yet
What am I missing?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Only "stupid" and "bad at spamming" spammers actually show their faces. PharmaMaster and other nameless, faceless net spammers tend to be so good that finding their real identity is hard.
Really, do you want to be known as the guy who harassed the spammer equivalent of the short-bus kid? Or do you want to go act out against the people generating 10-20% of all spam on the net?