Slashdot Mirror
Court Renders $3 Judgment Against Spamhaus
www.sorehands.com writes "Back in 2006, e360Insight and David Linhardt obtained an $11.7M judgment against Spamhaus, an international anti-spam organization. The judgment was subsequently appealed and reduced to $27,002. That judgment was appealed yet again, and the appeals court has now vacated the earlier number and entered a judgment against Spamhaus in the amount of $3. (Yes, three dollars.) As you may recall, e360's oral arguments for the latest appeal were not well received by the court."
The ruling itself is a fairly entertaining diatribe about how e360 shot itself in the foot repeatedly and with enthusiasm throughout the case, and contains gems like this: "By failing to comply with its basic discovery obligations, a party can snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory."
The spammers still won... Sure it's only 3 dollars.. But they still won. Instead of being burned at the stake like they deserve...
How is that justice or a good thing?
Quite many. GroupOn and their multiple daily emails about new offers is perfect example of this. Spammers have just wisen up from the 90's (or, adjusted to laws, as spamming wasn't illegal back then)
How many people actually legitimately "opt-in" for spam? Probably pretty close to 0.
Quite a few, actually.
Like ge7 said ... history has proven that people *will* opt into spam if you give them something in return. Give them a free ringtone, a mp3, some porn. Or a coupon for free food, and they'll agree to almost anything. It's not like anybody actually reads what they're agreeing to.
Of course, the flip side is that many of these people will scream bloody murder when these companies start spamming them "for no reason".
And many people do opt-in to spam -- spam that's highly targeted. As ge7 said ... GroupOn deals in your area? Often quite valuable, but once you stop caring -- it's spam.
If they created a site where people could donate $3 to them, I wonder how many people would contribute?
Ok, I give up, why you?
True that it's not really all that different. Although I think the main objection to spam isn't the cost of time and bandwidth, but more of a psychological feeling of powerlessness that there's nothing you can do to stop it. It's essentially a form of harassment.
Established companies with a reputation to maintain, I'd imagine, are actually quite happy to remove you from the mailing list on request.
Well, we're all disappointed that the ruling was a PDF and that the court doesn't use ASCII for your viewing pleasure. Maybe you should stick to browsing with Lynx on a VT100.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
In the US, you don't have to pay the winner's attorney's fees unless the judge specifically orders it. In this case, he did not. I also doubt that Spamhaus spent very much defending themselves in this case--the default judgment was because they didn't show up, and they went on to appeal the damages.
If you have signed up for it, it isn't spam. Spam is unsolicited communications where the sender has somehow managed to get your contact information in a way where you did not explicitly allow for it.
When the local stores send someone e-mail it is a concious signup made by the recipient.
As explained to an anonymous coward above, lawyers fees are only awarded if it is declared in the judgement, and not for all cases where someone loses. In particular, lawyers fees are usually only awarded in cases where it would be unreasonable for a party to shoulder the burden of bringing the case to court, usually because one side is so utterly wronged that it's either "come on defendants, these people shouldn't have had to bring this matter to a court... you were clearly wrong, and decided to just scream out 'nu-huh'"... or "come on plaintiffs, this argument is the stupidest thing in the world, and you have no evidence and/or no sane legal theory to make your argument... they never should have had to defend this in court in the first place."
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
That is half of the truth. The second part is content/applicability and ease of opt-out.
If my pencil-shop sends me an email after 5 years because he wants to sell a new one, it is spam. You don't expect it.
If my car-dealer sends me an email after 5 years because he wants to inform me about a call-back, most people would not consider it spam.
If my ISP sends me an email about pencils, it is spam.
If I cannot opt-out because I need my customer card to complete the procedure, it is spam.
Actually, and anyone at an ESP will tell you that, if the receiver thinks it is spam: it is. Because _that will_ hurt your deliverability at the hotmails and yahoos of the world.
Btw I'm in that business.
nosig today
Essentially hell, it is harassment. The non-stop assault of these assholes as they swarm my mail box makes me see red. They should be required by law to provide a valid return email account so I can e-mail them back and tell them how little I appreciate them sending me their shit.
The defendant made legal errors regarding personal jurisdiction, thus losing their opportunity to get the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction AND their opportunity to argue the merits.
The plaintiff made legal errors regarding discovery, thus losing their opportunity to recover damages.
The trial judge made legal errors that twice resulted in the verdict being overturned.
In the end, the case was decided without any actual evidence on the merits being admitted.
Justice!
http://xkcd.com/756//
Once you stop caring, it's fairly trivial to opt-out again... at least for legitimate services. Groupon would most certainly comply with an opt-out request.
Spam is UNSOLICITED!
If people signed up for it, then it is not spam.
Fight Spammers!
By definition email is no-longer spam if the receiver opted-in to receive it. Spam is *unsolicited* bulk email. This distinction is important because without it pretty much every piece of bulk email sent would be spam.
I don't get it either. Spamhaus isn't forcing anyone to use their list. If their list is full of false positives, then email providers are free not to use it. Wouldn't a more common sense target be a company like Yahoo that uses Spamhous as part of their policy?
They should be required by law to provide a valid return email account so I can e-mail them back and tell them how little I appreciate them sending me their shit.
They are. The law just isn't enforced.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice, and does not apply to your situation. If you want advice, pay my retainer.
Generally, responding at all confers jurisdiction, even if there was none to start with.
According to the opinion, spamhaus responded, and then changed it's mind.
Under traditional rules, all that could be done was contest jurisdiction, and any other act consented to jurisdiction (my civil procedure prof actually suggested using a letter rather than regular pleadings for good measure).
Under modern federal rules, and in most states, everything Canberra done at once--BUT you must deny Judie it croon in every pleading, or else.
hawk, Esq.
Spam boss: Hey Johnson, how are you coming on those replies to this morning's penis enlargement campaign?
Johnson: Making progress boss. Only 200,000 more replies left to read.
Spam boss: Great work Johnson.
Johnson: Hey boss?
Spam boss: Yeah Johnson?
Johnson: I think you should take a look at this reply from amiga3D...
Spam boss: Hmm... [reads email from Johnson's computer screen to self]
Spam boss: Well, sheeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiit, Jonhson, this guy is really unhappy with us. Son of a gun.
Johnson: What should I do, boss?
Spam boss: Take him off all our lists IMMEDIATELY! Have operations cancel the campaign that's going out right now and the two in the queue until we can be sure he's on on those lists. Forward his email to customer service and have them reply with an apology, and offer him a coupon for 25% off of a spam campaign. We'd better nip this in the bud before this guy makes makes his complaints public -- our reputation depends on on it!
Johnson: Of course, boss! Right away!
What I don't understand is how this is a "win". Yes, the court slapped SH on the wrist, but they still ruled against them. No beneficial precedent is set that I can see.
What I don't understand is how this is a "win". Yes, the court slapped SH on the wrist, but they still ruled against them. No beneficial precedent is set that I can see.
Precedent? In a civil suit? Stare Decisis is not operative in a civil suit, for good reason. Be illuminated.
Groupon isn't opt-in, it's opt-out. It's hard to even see the deals, let alone purchase them, without entering your e-mail address. There's no option at registration to disable e-mails. Instead, you have to wait until you get one and click the opt-out link.
On top of that, there's no way to opt-out of them giving your e-mail address to the retailer in question, who is then free to sell it to whomever they wish. (I stopped using groupon when they implemented that particular 'feature').
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.