I would hope so. Of course for the spammer to file a lawsuit, they would have to come out from under their rock. Once that happens, there will be at least a dozen anti-spammers ready to file suit under the I-CAN-SPAM act and their state laws.
I don't condone the illegal acts, because then you lower yourself almost to the level of the spammer (which is 1 step above a child molester on the morality scale).
The exception from the privacy laws is for a government agency so that they may perform government functions. The privacy commisioner determined that the use was not neccessary as a government function which prohibited the use the same way that a corporation is prohibited.
In the USA this type of activity is permitted in most situations. Canada has privacy protections for individuals which seem to limit this type of monitoring.
[sarcasm]Why not let the employer and police monitor everything you do? You only have something to hide if you are a criminal.[/sarcasm]
Comcast has a problem (or at least in LA) where the connectivity is lost, and can only be regained by powercycling the cable modem. Their solution is to power cycle the modem. Of course when I mention Linux, they say "we don't support Linux." My response is, "Did I ask for a linux command or how to configure linux?" Then I ask for their manager or anyone with an IP over room temperature.
The justices said it was public use. The same way that they decided that drug use is an interstate commerce issue -- because there is a chance that it might effect insterstate commerce.
By bulldozing your house, and putting up a Walmart, it is a public use because they can collect sales tax -- see, public use.
Well, at least we can still speak against the government, or at least for today.
I was at the AppleFest Boston in 1983, where Steve Wozniak brought up that point in the piracy debate/round table. Of course that was after he ducked under the table to put on his eye patch and hat. Before that he was quoting BSA type figures while being interrupted by the phone where he answered "just type BRUN CHOPLIFTER"
All discrimination is illegal, except for illegal discrimination.
The only discrimination that is illegal is the type of discrimination that has been held illegal -- usually based on a protected attribute. It is legal to discriminate on someone with green hair, or drives a F.O.R.D. or who wore Calvin Klein jeans on a Tuesday.
Though one lawsuit won't put a spammer out of business, 50 lawsuits might. Or 15 will make them reconsider thought business of spamming like Avtech.
Having over a million spams a day should make easy to find some spammers that can be tracked and sued. With that volume, it may be easy to find an attorney that can do it on contigency.
It is not that bad (usally a bit faster than dialup, but a pain in the ass ping time). It still is good for the convinience. The ping time is slow when using ssh or telnet.
If you have sprint, you can also connect your laptop to your treo using PDA Net.
spammers are sending mail from outside of California, so they're not subject to California jurisdiction;
If you send advertising into California, are subject to California law. See Panavision v. Topen 141 F.3d 1316, 1320),. Burger King 471 U.S. at 475, and Calder v. Jones 465 U.S. 783.
Too many people have been paid off to get rid of the I-CAN-SPAM act. But, if it made to be easy to filter, and easy to sue for anything that makes it passed the filter (because they broke the law), then the I-CAN-SPAM act won't smell too bad.
One treak, label all spam with ADV: in the subject
on
Tweaking the CAN-SPAM Act
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If the spam is required to be labeled with a subject line starting with ADV: it makes it very easy to filter and easy for a judge and jury to determine that it does break the law when they don't include it. Under the California law, if you leave out required labeling, it is deceptive allowing individuals to sue for $1000 for each one.
You gave notice and agreed to work for that period. Even if he is being an asshole, that is not a reason for going back on your word.
But....
Him making those accusations, can be considered slander and can be actionable. His regusing to pay unless you find a replacement, is illegal in many states. You should place in an e-mail, saving a copy of the e-mail in a mailbox that is not a company mailbox, that explains this and that you agreed to work for the period (and assist in looking for a replacement). And point out that in talking to potential replacements, that when speaking to them, you will only speak the truth of the working environment. And if it is an impossible environment, then your discussions will reflect that.
Point out that his behavior indicates that he does not want you there now, and if he does not want you there, you would be happy to leave immediately.
Even if they didn't file a trademark, but the use should be pervasive enough to have earned trademark protection. But a trademark applies to a field, Ford can be trademarked for Models and Cars without infringing on each other. Hulk Hogan is a character in both situations. Magneto is a character in one situation, where it is a phone in another.
The key issue is trademark is the issue of confusion.
As I had said to several attorneys, filing a spam lawsuit against a spammer is the 2nd clearest way of saying that spam is not welcome. The clearest ways is the shotgun method.
If people used shotguns on spammers, it will reduce spam.
Even though you are making the mistake of civil v. criminal, I am going to try to explain this.
Even in a civil case, you must have probable cause to go into someone's bank records, medical records, phone records, search someone's house.
The school said, we are going to require you to have some basis to invade these student's privacy -- nothing is wrong with that. If this is a criminal case, the police would have to get a warrant from a judge. Here in a civil case, the school is saying get a judge to order us to.
This test has already come up in many courts. The plaintiff (RIAA) has to show that there is a likelyhood that they would be successful, before unmasking these people.
This comes from many cases where employees or investors have commented about companies and the company files suit only to unmask the people, then drop the suit. One of the early decisions was released in 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hope so. Of course for the spammer to file a lawsuit, they would have to come out from under their rock. Once that happens, there will be at least a dozen anti-spammers ready to file suit under the I-CAN-SPAM act and their state laws.
I don't condone the illegal acts, because then you lower yourself almost to the level of the spammer (which is 1 step above a child molester on the morality scale).
Batman Begins could be viewed on the screen at the theater, so I can bring in a video camera to make a copy.
You didn't lock your car door, so it is ok to steal your car?
The exception from the privacy laws is for a government agency so that they may perform government functions. The privacy commisioner determined that the use was not neccessary as a government function which prohibited the use the same way that a corporation is prohibited.
[sarcasm]Why not let the employer and police monitor everything you do? You only have something to hide if you are a criminal.[/sarcasm]
What about gambling sites? Especially around the superbowl. We have seen reports the cyberblackmail of these types of sites.
Comcast has a problem (or at least in LA) where the connectivity is lost, and can only be regained by powercycling the cable modem. Their solution is to power cycle the modem. Of course when I mention Linux, they say "we don't support Linux." My response is, "Did I ask for a linux command or how to configure linux?" Then I ask for their manager or anyone with an IP over room temperature.
By bulldozing your house, and putting up a Walmart, it is a public use because they can collect sales tax -- see, public use.
Well, at least we can still speak against the government, or at least for today.
All the politicians are the same!
They take payoffs, and screew the little guy.
Didn't you see the movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman". It is a documentary on how Washington works.
Why don't you think the CAN-SPAM law was paased?
I was at the AppleFest Boston in 1983, where Steve Wozniak brought up that point in the piracy debate/round table. Of course that was after he ducked under the table to put on his eye patch and hat. Before that he was quoting BSA type figures while being interrupted by the phone where he answered "just type BRUN CHOPLIFTER"
The only discrimination that is illegal is the type of discrimination that has been held illegal -- usually based on a protected attribute. It is legal to discriminate on someone with green hair, or drives a F.O.R.D. or who wore Calvin Klein jeans on a Tuesday.
Having over a million spams a day should make easy to find some spammers that can be tracked and sued. With that volume, it may be easy to find an attorney that can do it on contigency.
It is not that bad (usally a bit faster than dialup, but a pain in the ass ping time). It still is good for the convinience. The ping time is slow when using ssh or telnet.
If you have sprint, you can also connect your laptop to your treo using PDA Net.
You mean when you call 911 you don't get put on hold for 20 minutes?
Too many people have been paid off to get rid of the I-CAN-SPAM act. But, if it made to be easy to filter, and easy to sue for anything that makes it passed the filter (because they broke the law), then the I-CAN-SPAM act won't smell too bad.
If the spam is required to be labeled with a subject line starting with ADV: it makes it very easy to filter and easy for a judge and jury to determine that it does break the law when they don't include it. Under the California law, if you leave out required labeling, it is deceptive allowing individuals to sue for $1000 for each one.
Nasa: Hello, my rover is stuck in a dune.
AAA: Where is the dune?
Nasa: On mars.
AAA: What is the make and model of the vehicle?
Nasa: It's a rover.
AAA: What color?
Nasa: Grey.
AAA: What is the license plate?
Nasa: It does not have a license plate.
AAA: I'm sorry, if you don't have a license plate, we can't send out a tow truck. [click].
But....
Him making those accusations, can be considered slander and can be actionable. His regusing to pay unless you find a replacement, is illegal in many states. You should place in an e-mail, saving a copy of the e-mail in a mailbox that is not a company mailbox, that explains this and that you agreed to work for the period (and assist in looking for a replacement). And point out that in talking to potential replacements, that when speaking to them, you will only speak the truth of the working environment. And if it is an impossible environment, then your discussions will reflect that.
Point out that his behavior indicates that he does not want you there now, and if he does not want you there, you would be happy to leave immediately.
The key issue is trademark is the issue of confusion.
If people used shotguns on spammers, it will reduce spam.
I meant probable cause for a search warrant in a criminal case.
You get to pick up women at family reunions.
I would not want to see wooden dolls of the MPAA and RIAA jumping up and down against each other -- too many splinters.
Even in a civil case, you must have probable cause to go into someone's bank records, medical records, phone records, search someone's house.
The school said, we are going to require you to have some basis to invade these student's privacy -- nothing is wrong with that. If this is a criminal case, the police would have to get a warrant from a judge. Here in a civil case, the school is saying get a judge to order us to.
This test has already come up in many courts. The plaintiff (RIAA) has to show that there is a likelyhood that they would be successful, before unmasking these people.
This comes from many cases where employees or investors have commented about companies and the company files suit only to unmask the people, then drop the suit. One of the early decisions was released in 2000.