It is NOT an advertiser's legal right to contact you. Foremost among our rights is the right to be left alone.
The problem with spam that most people (especially lawmakers) just don't get is that spam is VERY different from traditional snail-mail advertising. It ends up shifting the costs of advertising to those RECEIVING the advertising and to those in the chain of distribution (ISPs). These two aspects are significant. In fact, this cost-shifting was one of the primary rationales behind outlawing unsolicited commercial facsimile transmissions (remember fax machines?). This law is 47 USC sec. 227 - $500 fine per violation.
So I ask you, why should advertisers be allowed to make the public pay for their advertising simply because it is possible to advertise electronically? Remember: The corollary to someone's 1st Amendment right to speak is someone else's right to not be subjected to the speech.
It is legal in the sense that generally persons and companies are free to agree to any contract terms they want (exceptions - illegal contracts, like to murder, etc.). A license is simply that - a contract.
Intellectual property is like other forms of property like real estate for one. Of the the rights you get from owning property is the right to control its use - including how others use it. Thus, the license comes into play.
It may be illegal in the sense that it may end up violating the antitrust laws. Without rehashing the still undecided gov't case against MS, restrictive licenses by monopolists have been found to violate antitrust laws in the past.
What I am more interested in learning is how MS plans on policing and enforcing this license. Are the compiler police going to check my hard drive to make sure I am not using gcc? Or will MS load code to make sure I am open-source free and alert them anytime it detects suspicious activity (defined: use of non-MS software) just in case I am writing source code in Star Office's word processor?
There is a saying in medical malpractice law: Good Medicine makes Good Law. Bottom line: the legal standards that will be applied are those good practices that the professionals set themselves.
Sometimes I look at some of the code that's out there and wonder if anyone bothers to give the codes of ethics by the ACM, IEEE, and SEI a second thought, or if most people even know these things exist.
As for laws, the quality of statutes and court decisions is directly affected by the input of computing professionals. Without input from the computing community, those who draft and enact the law are operating in a vacuum. If legislatures enact bad laws and judges make bad decisions, we are all partly to blame for not educating them as to the issues.
Dear Anonymous Coward - your argument proves me right. Every example you gave first of all is not an example of a local law "trumping" a federal law - they are examples of Congress using its power to spend to coerce states into following a federal policy. Without giving you an advanced lesson in Constitutional law, I'll just say that this is permissible.
As to the extent that your examples are appropriate, you gave examples of FEDERAL law TRUMPING local/state laws - exactly what I said happens.
No - Give ME a break! Did you read the article? Obviously not - the Washington Supreme Court UPHELD it.
You are the one who really needs to get real here. This law regulates commercial speech and just like dozens of other laws, just makes sure it is truthful. It doesn't say what you can or can't say politically or in another protected arena. It just says that is you use UCE to try to make money then your email must contain TRUTHFUL information.
How would you like it if a spammer said " to order this cal ###-##-#### and inserted your home phone number? Well, false reply email addresses and forged headers/domain names have the same effect on ISPs.
Never mind "Dumb Laws" - your comments should be on Stupid Postings because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
I'm sorry, but this is a REALLY misguided opinion. This decision and the statute it is interpreting do NOTHING to affect free speech. It does NOTcontrol the content of what was said. It does NOT infringe upon the right of anyone to send as many UCEs as they want. What it DOES do is ensure that what is said in a UCE is TRUTHFUL.
Everyone always yells "First Amendment!" without knowing what they are talking about. I have news for you - different speakers have different 1st A. rights. Different topics have different 1st A. rights. Private citizens and the media get the highest level of protection for classes of speakers. Political speech gets the highest level of protection for content. Corporations/businesses and commercial speech get the lowest level of protection.
This law is the equivalent of many other laws that are pro-consumer and make the marketplace fairer - Truth in Lending laws, laws against false advertising, laws against unsolicited commercial faxes (Yes - there is a federal law against sending unsolicited ads via fax - see 47 USC sec. 227 and the regs).
All a spammer has to do is make sure the subject line is not misleading and that the header information is accurate and they have nothing to worry about. If you still think that this law goes too far, think about this: How about instead of a false/cancelled return email address for complaints, someone said to call YOUR HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER. ??? How would you like that? It's the same thing when the return email is false.
You couldn't be more wrong. This decision UPHOLDS the ability of the states (in this case - Washington) to regulate in this area. The constitutional issue deals with the Dormant Commerce Clause - (over)simply said, it means that the US Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and the states' power to regulate is limited when such regulations affect interstate commerce. This case says that Washington's anti-spam law falls in an area where it doesn't conflict with federal law because Congress has been silent. It DOESN'T say Congress cannot regulate this activity. State courts cannot issue rulings that limit the federal government - federal law trumps state law. Congress could easily pass an anti-spam law that would blanket the entire country and make spamming a federal (civil or criminal) offense - they just haven't. Because they haven't, Washington (and other states) can step in with their own laws.
This is IMHLO (in my humble legal opinion), but I am entitled to a legal opinion because IAAL (I am a lawyer).
This opinion WILL last - it is an en banc (meaning: the entire Court heard/participated)decision. Because it is a state Supreme Court interpreting the federal Conbstitution, it does have the possibility of reaching the US Supreme Court and being overturned there. However, given the number of cases the USSC hears, this scenario is highly unlikely - especially if the justices at the USSC think the decision is right. The spammer would have to argue that falsifying headers/misleading suject lines promote interstate commerce - a ridiculous proposition.
IMHLO (I am a lawyer, so I can give a legal opinion) this decision will last and Washington's statute will serve as a model for other states because it has withstood this constitutional challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with spam that most people (especially lawmakers) just don't get is that spam is VERY different from traditional snail-mail advertising. It ends up shifting the costs of advertising to those RECEIVING the advertising and to those in the chain of distribution (ISPs). These two aspects are significant. In fact, this cost-shifting was one of the primary rationales behind outlawing unsolicited commercial facsimile transmissions (remember fax machines?). This law is 47 USC sec. 227 - $500 fine per violation.
So I ask you, why should advertisers be allowed to make the public pay for their advertising simply because it is possible to advertise electronically? Remember: The corollary to someone's 1st Amendment right to speak is someone else's right to not be subjected to the speech.
It is legal in the sense that generally persons and companies are free to agree to any contract terms they want (exceptions - illegal contracts, like to murder, etc.). A license is simply that - a contract.
Intellectual property is like other forms of property like real estate for one. Of the the rights you get from owning property is the right to control its use - including how others use it. Thus, the license comes into play.
It may be illegal in the sense that it may end up violating the antitrust laws. Without rehashing the still undecided gov't case against MS, restrictive licenses by monopolists have been found to violate antitrust laws in the past.
What I am more interested in learning is how MS plans on policing and enforcing this license. Are the compiler police going to check my hard drive to make sure I am not using gcc? Or will MS load code to make sure I am open-source free and alert them anytime it detects suspicious activity (defined: use of non-MS software) just in case I am writing source code in Star Office's word processor?
Sometimes I look at some of the code that's out there and wonder if anyone bothers to give the codes of ethics by the ACM, IEEE, and SEI a second thought, or if most people even know these things exist.
As for laws, the quality of statutes and court decisions is directly affected by the input of computing professionals. Without input from the computing community, those who draft and enact the law are operating in a vacuum. If legislatures enact bad laws and judges make bad decisions, we are all partly to blame for not educating them as to the issues.
As to the extent that your examples are appropriate, you gave examples of FEDERAL law TRUMPING local/state laws - exactly what I said happens.
You are the one who really needs to get real here. This law regulates commercial speech and just like dozens of other laws, just makes sure it is truthful. It doesn't say what you can or can't say politically or in another protected arena. It just says that is you use UCE to try to make money then your email must contain TRUTHFUL information.
How would you like it if a spammer said " to order this cal ###-##-#### and inserted your home phone number? Well, false reply email addresses and forged headers/domain names have the same effect on ISPs.
Never mind "Dumb Laws" - your comments should be on Stupid Postings because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Everyone always yells "First Amendment!" without knowing what they are talking about. I have news for you - different speakers have different 1st A. rights. Different topics have different 1st A. rights. Private citizens and the media get the highest level of protection for classes of speakers. Political speech gets the highest level of protection for content. Corporations/businesses and commercial speech get the lowest level of protection.
This law is the equivalent of many other laws that are pro-consumer and make the marketplace fairer - Truth in Lending laws, laws against false advertising, laws against unsolicited commercial faxes (Yes - there is a federal law against sending unsolicited ads via fax - see 47 USC sec. 227 and the regs).
All a spammer has to do is make sure the subject line is not misleading and that the header information is accurate and they have nothing to worry about. If you still think that this law goes too far, think about this: How about instead of a false/cancelled return email address for complaints, someone said to call YOUR HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER. ??? How would you like that? It's the same thing when the return email is false.
You couldn't be more wrong. This decision UPHOLDS the ability of the states (in this case - Washington) to regulate in this area. The constitutional issue deals with the Dormant Commerce Clause - (over)simply said, it means that the US Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and the states' power to regulate is limited when such regulations affect interstate commerce. This case says that Washington's anti-spam law falls in an area where it doesn't conflict with federal law because Congress has been silent. It DOESN'T say Congress cannot regulate this activity. State courts cannot issue rulings that limit the federal government - federal law trumps state law. Congress could easily pass an anti-spam law that would blanket the entire country and make spamming a federal (civil or criminal) offense - they just haven't. Because they haven't, Washington (and other states) can step in with their own laws. This is IMHLO (in my humble legal opinion), but I am entitled to a legal opinion because IAAL (I am a lawyer).
This opinion WILL last - it is an en banc (meaning: the entire Court heard/participated)decision. Because it is a state Supreme Court interpreting the federal Conbstitution, it does have the possibility of reaching the US Supreme Court and being overturned there. However, given the number of cases the USSC hears, this scenario is highly unlikely - especially if the justices at the USSC think the decision is right. The spammer would have to argue that falsifying headers/misleading suject lines promote interstate commerce - a ridiculous proposition. IMHLO (I am a lawyer, so I can give a legal opinion) this decision will last and Washington's statute will serve as a model for other states because it has withstood this constitutional challenge.