If you mean that they will use overseas servers, that won't help the spammers. If they are in the USA, you can get them in the USA. You can actually sue an overseas spammer here, but it may be hard to collect.
If you are talking of spammers overseas. You can go after a spammer overseas, but it is harder to do and to collect from.
Robots.txt is not like locking your door with a weak latch. It's like leaving the door unlocked with a "please behave while inside" sign on it.
No, it is more like a sign at the airport that says "Employees only" and then when you are surrounded by the police, you claim "but there was no lock on the door."
Or at a Radio Shack, there is a sign on the back room door, "Private, employees only."
This is the same type of thing that was done to Felton. The RIAA threatened him with the law, then when he did make a Federal case out of it, they said, "ooopppp, we didn't mean it." So then, the judge threw out the case.
The purpose of the law is not to get convictions, but to have the threat there so that the MPAA/RIAA can bully individuals.
In my case, it was a counterclaim so that the discovery for the employment lawsuit was the mostly same for the libel counterclaim.
I did most of the legal research and analysis. Some states provides an anti-slapp statute which provides for a quick resolution to a slapp case. Casp.net provides a list of state laws about SLAPPs.
That is not per person. That is 4 to each Intel's employees.
I differ with Ken. He is of the belief that if it is on the internet, you can just send email to it -- same as spammers. I believe that his acts are protected under the NLRB, DOL, and anti-discrimination laws, and encouraged by section 8 of the EEOC compliance guide.
In California, there is a $50/spam for the ESP per spam. There is no statutory damages for the recipient of the spam, yet. Soon, it will be $500/spam once SB12 gets signed by the governor.
Why not just have police stop arresting criminals so that the number of resisting arrest charges get reduced.
Drug addition is a physical additiction. The idea of the needle exchange program is to prevent reduce the spread of a FATAL disease. The purpose of the laws against needles is to cut the use of drugs, but the drugs are still illegal.
Here, this guy is proposing something along the lines of eliminating car locks so that noone will be arrested for carrying burgulary tools.
I know. When living in Austin, it took a while to get cable modem. But not having cable modem sucked there because the phone lines sucked (I was lucky to get a 26.1k connection).
This is already available from Vonage. They provide VOIP allowing you to select your area code (I picked 617 so my family can call me w/o paying long distance charges). Since the $39/month rate includes unlimited calls to USA and Canada, I forward to my cell phone when I am not home -- giving me lifetime cell number (and more) without being locked into a cell provider.
I said the same to George Moore, aka. Dr. Fatburn. He gave me a great quote, "I don't want to take time out my enjoyment of life, to write that I didn't subscribe."
What's wrong, he could he not do the physical world equivelent of clicking the unsubscribe link?
Sounds alot like the Felton v. RIAA case a while back. The RIAA sent the same sort of message to Felton, but then when Felton took action, they said, "Oh, we didn't mean it."
I'd go ahead and let them try to come after me. I don't think that a can of Coke is considered protected copywritten material that they had in mind for the DMCA.
In several states the requirement is "ADV:" as the first 4 characters of the subject. It is a simple test, only 4 characters tested -- even with a long subject.
The only problem is that most spammers ignore laws and are morally one step above child molesters.
The appeals court overturned liability (saying the jury was wrong in telling the website owners to pay the victim) in the Nuremburg (sp?) files case.
This was the case where they had abortion doctors pictured on the site as targets. The jury awarded the estate of one of the victims, but the appeals court said that the site did not tell people to go out and shoot the doctors.
The issue here is not the permission to use Intel's property, but the reason for requesting him to stop.
Generally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, EXCEPT an illegal reason. Similar applies to public accomodations. Here, you have Intel (ex-employer) banning Hamibi from sending email to Intel's employees but not banning others from sending email though servers to Intel's employees. This was done specifically because Hamibi was engaging in a protected act, complaining of discrimination, wage&hour violations. One is not required to file a lawsuit to be protected by the anti-retaliation laws.
In general you are correct. But, here Intel told Hamibi not to send the messages because the message was complaining of employment practices, discrimination, etc. Now, these have more protection than the first ammendment. There are statutes that prevent people and employers from taking action against persons complaining of discrimination or aiding or encouraging others of asserting their rights under the anti-discrimination or labor laws (NLRB, FMLA, Title VII, ADEA, ADA, etc.)
I'm affraid that If Itel looses it will further open the floodgates on spam.
That is not true. The court will not just say, "Yes" or "No." What the court will do is to draw a lines as to what is permissible. Hamidi's case is based on freedom of speech and first amendment, which provides greater protection for non-commercial speech than comercial speech. The other issue that was mentioned earler in the case (not argued yesterday -- though I suggested arguing it to him) is that his speech is protected by statute under the various anti-discrimination and unionization laws.
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean that they will use overseas servers, that won't help the spammers. If they are in the USA, you can get them in the USA. You can actually sue an overseas spammer here, but it may be hard to collect.
If you are talking of spammers overseas. You can go after a spammer overseas, but it is harder to do and to collect from.
We can also go after the people that hire them.
No, it is more like a sign at the airport that says "Employees only" and then when you are surrounded by the police, you claim "but there was no lock on the door."
Or at a Radio Shack, there is a sign on the back room door, "Private, employees only."
The purpose of the law is not to get convictions, but to have the threat there so that the MPAA/RIAA can bully individuals.
I did most of the legal research and analysis. Some states provides an anti-slapp statute which provides for a quick resolution to a slapp case.
Casp.net provides a list of state laws about SLAPPs.
Bullies should not be allowed to win. By allowing a bully to win, you encourage them to bully others.
No. It is the stopping mail from a city where are 100 people sending 60,000 envelopes with anthrax in it.
I differ with Ken. He is of the belief that if it is on the internet, you can just send email to it -- same as spammers. I believe that his acts are protected under the NLRB, DOL, and anti-discrimination laws, and encouraged by section 8 of the EEOC compliance guide.
In any case, it is not commercial.
I don't consider 4 emails harassment.
But you can argue for punitive damages.
My favorite is the 1982 Havard/Yale/MIT football game. My second favorite was the police car on top of the dome, including donut.
We have proven that gnomes do not exist.
Drug addition is a physical additiction. The idea of the needle exchange program is to prevent reduce the spread of a FATAL disease. The purpose of the laws against needles is to cut the use of drugs, but the drugs are still illegal.
Here, this guy is proposing something along the lines of eliminating car locks so that noone will be arrested for carrying burgulary tools.
I know. When living in Austin, it took a while to get cable modem. But not having cable modem sucked there because the phone lines sucked (I was lucky to get a 26.1k connection).
Is that clear?
For C/C++ programmers, You can use your Vonage number as a pointer to a cell number.
This is already available from Vonage. They provide VOIP allowing you to select your area code (I picked 617 so my family can call me w/o paying long distance charges). Since the $39/month rate includes unlimited calls to USA and Canada, I forward to my cell phone when I am not home -- giving me lifetime cell number (and more) without being locked into a cell provider.
What's wrong, he could he not do the physical world equivelent of clicking the unsubscribe link?
I'd go ahead and let them try to come after me. I don't think that a can of Coke is considered protected copywritten material that they had in mind for the DMCA.
I rented a Hyundai with a bad transmission, now if that is not redundant, what is?
The ruling only says that it is premature. That there is no pending lawsuit. This is similar to Felton v. RIAA.
In several states the requirement is "ADV:" as the first 4 characters of the subject. It is a simple test, only 4 characters tested -- even with a long subject.
The only problem is that most spammers ignore laws and are morally one step above child molesters.
This was the case where they had abortion doctors pictured on the site as targets. The jury awarded the estate of one of the victims, but the appeals court said that the site did not tell people to go out and shoot the doctors.
The issue here is not the permission to use Intel's property, but the reason for requesting him to stop.
Generally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason, EXCEPT an illegal reason. Similar applies to public accomodations. Here, you have Intel (ex-employer) banning Hamibi from sending email to Intel's employees but not banning others from sending email though servers to Intel's employees. This was done specifically because Hamibi was engaging in a protected act, complaining of discrimination, wage&hour violations. One is not required to file a lawsuit to be protected by the anti-retaliation laws.
In general you are correct. But, here Intel told Hamibi not to send the messages because the message was complaining of employment practices, discrimination, etc. Now, these have more protection than the first ammendment. There are statutes that prevent people and employers from taking action against persons complaining of discrimination or aiding or encouraging others of asserting their rights under the anti-discrimination or labor laws (NLRB, FMLA, Title VII, ADEA, ADA, etc.)
That is not true. The court will not just say, "Yes" or "No." What the court will do is to draw a lines as to what is permissible. Hamidi's case is based on freedom of speech and first amendment, which provides greater protection for non-commercial speech than comercial speech. The other issue that was mentioned earler in the case (not argued yesterday -- though I suggested arguing it to him) is that his speech is protected by statute under the various anti-discrimination and unionization laws.