Besides Slashdot.org, send copies ofcomplaints to Belkin (Deming seems to be the perfect person) as well as consumer media outlets like Tech TV, PC Magazine, and other tech websites. Spread the information so hopefully when searchs of the word Belkin are made, the results of the complaints and the problem itself will be returned.
Your right of free speech stops at my mailbox. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.
Can you imagine a whole new class of "door-to-door" salesmen who knocked on your door, entered your house uninvited, demanded the use of your possessions, showed their product and then claimed that you had no right to stop them because it would violate their right of free speech?
The TCPA has been around for over 10 years now and has been upheld to be constitutional, but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying the same old arguments again and again. They include: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997). Linder v. Thrifty Oil negates the popular "minimal harm" argument.
Because cert to the US Supreme Court was denied in the 9th Circuit, it means that the operating law is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which unanimously upheld the TCPA as constitutional. The 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits so this ruling holds a lot of weight. It covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, federal district courts in three circuits have also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA.
An 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. Limbaugh's bogus ruling was reversed, as we predicted, by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21, 2003. (it is important for you all to understand the differences between a ruling being reversed, remanded, or otherwise directed. Reversed pretty much means that something was in such gross error, it should have never existed.) http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/0 3/022705P.p df
Once you make a DNC request, the company is not allowed to call you for 10 years. That is as straight forward as it gets.
The part where it gets interesting is that you cannot bring about your own private right of action unless they call you at least twice, in violation of your DNC request, within a single 12 month span. So only on a third call, assuming that you had made the demand at least twice before, can you sue, however you can bring about action for all the violations once your private right of action exists. The most recent FCC M&O did not change the rule.
Here is the URL for the spanking that FCC is giving AT&T. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2 003/db1103/FCC-03-267A1.pdf
For those keeping up with such things, there is a good footnote for those against junk faxers.
#23:"... We note, however, that unsolicited facsimile advertising is unlawful under section 64.1200(a)(3) of our rules even when a consumer has not requested that such transmissions be halted."
Cut down a tree in your own yard in many jurisdictions and you'll be paying out thousands in fines. Who is the victim there. Shouldn't you be allowed to cut down your own 200 year old oak tree if you want?
Littering on the highway is victimless...right? That will get you a $500 minimum fine in some states.
Junk faxes my only cost you a few pennies, but you can collect $500 from a company that sends it. The law prohibiting it has been around for over a decade. Every SINGLE federal court district that has hear issues of 'free speech' and junk faxing have denied the complaints. Commercial speech does NOT have the same protections nor should it.
That fact is that such activity is not victimless. Admins have to constantly adjust and upgrade mail servers to try to stop the flow or manage the load. That costs time and money, and those costs are passed on to you and me.
The only way to stop this kind of behavior is to make it no longer viable for them to do this. The Government doesn't have the resources, so a private right of action is the key. If it wasn't for those of use that take on telemarketers and junk faxers, I guarantee that it would be a much larger problem.
Funny that you mention that. I am literally typing this inside a Subway eating dinner while sharing a broadband DSL connection that is being piped to me by an eye care (actually called ICare) outlet two doors down!
Ijust turned on my laptop to write a letter and my console indicated a connection. How nice for them to offer this to anyone.
I cannot believe that this the post was modded\ +5 insightful. There is nothing insightful about it in the least..merely guesswork and incorrect assumptions.
Why doesn't someone just go to court?
Some people just might go, but cases cost a LOT of money and take a lot of time. Even winning a case of this level will cost you thousands of dollars.
When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for
This shows a complete lack of the legal system. Any settlement can easily turn into a garnishment of future wages. A judgment can remain in effect for a long time, so as soon as you get anything, such as inheritance, then that will be removed. A public judgment against you makes you a risk to a business. What do you have right now in your home? Look around, since if you lost large, you wouldn't have any of that now.
Even if I lost it would cost them money
Again, proof of any understanding of the legal system. This kind of case easily has lawyer's fees included in the judgment. Again, there is the forfeiture of anything you own now or garnishment of anything you own in the future until the judgement is satisfied, with interest.
bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business
They have tried other methods, unfortunately this is going to be the most effective method to combat the problem.
ludricrous [sic] that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine
Where do you draw the line. Some people would think that a judgment of $500-1500 for sending a single junk fax is harsh, but that is legal. It is difficult to quantify damages. This action is being taken as a deterrent, and it seems to be decently effective.
Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money
This lack of knowledge is completely pathetic. Blackmail is the extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information. RIAA isn't the ones publishing identities of anyone. Someone violated the law and the company is saying, we're willing to settle for less than the statutory damages already owed. When I send demand letters to companies that violate telemarketing laws, 7 times out of 10 someone makes a claim of blackmail or extortion, however once we get to court or they talk to a lawyer, it never comes up again.
Instead of sounding off on something that you obviously know so little about, why don't you pick up even the most rudimentary law book so you do not go around quite to ignorant anymore about a system that has a substantial effect on your life.
Per the TCPA (47 USC 227) prerecorded calls may be made by, or on behalf of, non-profit organizations. Since debt-consolidation agencies have to be non-profit there are people that create or run two companies for the purpose of getting around this. Integrated Credit Solutions (Flagship) is engaged in the business of marketing and providing call center support for tax-exempt organizations such as Lighthouse Credit Foundation. Lighthouse Credit Foundation, is the "tax-exempt non-profit organization" in whose "behalf" ICS makes the calls.
They are located in the very same building, have the same in-house counsel, and are breaking the law by trying to use smoke and mirrors. Each have their hands in the pockets of the other, and it isn't just to take a dollar out. Of course most aren't buying it, including the attorney generals of several states; New York http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgov/press99/marc h8_02.htm Massachusetts http://www.ago.state.ma.us/press_rel/ics.asp?head1 =Press+Releases§ion=5 Florida http://myflori dalegal.com/lit_ec.nsf/0/96159EA0F81 DA9E885256A8700650763?OpenDocument Missouri http ://www.ago.state.mo.us/071201.htm
Besides making your complaint heard among a crowd of complainers, which will not be heard by the people responsible, why not complain to those that are responsible for this? Emails to kazaa.com might be ignored, but those to the law firms must be read by someone. It is hard for them to simply do a mass delete of emails since doing so will severely limit their ability to represent the client. especially when they delete something that may have bearing on the case.
The posted complaint had the user specific data removed, but the domain information remained (biztechlaw.com).
Whois info for, biztechlaw.com (note: they canot even properlly spell their own company name):
Registrant:
Business & Technolgy Law Group
19687 Los Alimos Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
US
Domain name: BIZTECHLAW.COM
Administrative Contact:
Alderton, Scott salderton@eglgroup.com
19687 Los Alimos Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
US
818-486-1970 Fax: 818-363-7249
Registration Service Provider:
InfoStreet, Inc., domreg@infostreet.com
818 776 8080
This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 18-Aug-2003.
Record expires on 22-Mar-2012.
Record Created on 22-Mar-2002.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BDE3D.COM 66.186.13.144
NS.BDE3D.COM 64.60.8.163
A google search of biztechlaw.com also shows and email address of salderton@biztechlaw.com.
A search on this guy turns up a bit of irony as one of the first hits: "Scott Alderton will moderate a panel discussion on "Venturing in New Media: A Content Meltdown?" " Content meltdown eh?
The contact page on their website is in.jpg format, I assume to stop spam bots from harvesting, but for those interested:
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP 15821 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 525 Encino, CA 91436 office 818-444-4500 fax 818-444-4520 email info@biztechlaw.com
The partners seem to be Scott Alderton (direct 818-444-4501; fax 818-474-8601; salderton@biztechlaw.com), Joe Stubbs (direct 818-444-4507; fax 818-474-8607; jstubbs@biztechlaw.com), and Murray Markiles (direct,818.444.4505; fax 818-474-8605; mmarkiles@biztechlaw.com).
Those that participate in usenet, copy the data and post it so interested parties may contact Kazaa'a representation so as to convey their personal opinions. I sent them an email already of what I felt concerning their actions and those of their client.
[i]Of course they can. However, barring certain exceptions [donotcall.gov], it is illegal for them to do so if your name is on the national do-not-call list. [/i]
This is absolutely incorrect. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (yes, over a decade ago) has made calls to numbers where the person must pay for the call (i.e. cell phones) illegal. There are few exceptions (such as where you specifically gave the organization calling your number as the point of contact. However if your organization were to sell the number, anyone else calling would be in violation.)
[i]Alternately, it is illegal for any telemarketer to call you if you have requested to be added to their own "do-not-call" list. Note: telling them "don't call me" or "take me off your list" might not be sufficient, you must ask to be added to their "do-not-call list". [/i]
Finally, a few people understand this. This is extremely important. Also say specifically "Add me to your do-not-call list" and "Send me a copy of your policy regarding the maintence of your do-not-call list". You should do this without exception.
[i]My understanding is, the fact that you pay for time spent on incoming calls doesn't protect you in any way from any call. [/i]
Your understandiong is, unfortunately, incorrect. The whole idea behind the pay-per-call and junk fax provisions were to prevent people from having to pay for the advertising of another. Junk faxes have been illegal for over a decade. There is NO established business relationship that would allow a junk fax. If you do business with a company and they send you a weekly ad without your prior EXPRESS permission, then they are in as much violation of the law as the random loan or vacation fax that you get.
[i]If anything, it makes you more vulnerable, and makes registering the number on the do-not-call more useful. [/i]
It makes it more useful for the government, but not really for you. The new rules do not provide a private right of action if you get called when you are on the list. You only have a private right of action if they make two calls in violation of the law withing a 12 month period, though it hasn't been decided if a firs call is a violation that would count. Time and additional rulings will tell.
Well that's easy..purchase all the materials out of state and even deny them of the sales tax and increase unemployment at the same time. Wonderful solution by the state.
I did not quite get 5000, however I just came home to see over 180 messages. The real ironic/confusing thing is that *every* single one of them were to the address I use to post on slashdot. I get occasional spams by however spammers lift the address from this board, however I do not see how or why this virus would be sent to me so many times.
I have never received any emails from a human to my slashdot address (not even responses to my comments), so I don't see how my address would be in anyone's Outlook book. I wonder if a spammer got infected and their spam lists got used as a target.
I thought the email addresses associated with our profiles were hidden in some way to prevent spam harvesting. Quite confusing.
You know, I don't think that I would want to see the website up. If it was, then I wonder if the IT guys decided to host it off site in case of..umm..power failure.
The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991) (47 USC 227 and subsequent FCC regulations of CFR 64.1200) have outlawed several practices and create certain requirements for others.
Two things completely outlawed: 1) Junk faxes - unsolicited commercial faxes may NOT be sent without WRITTEN authorization of the fax machine/line owner. Period. There is NO EBR (established business relationship) that would exempt that. If you are sent an advertisement and did not specifically give your (express) permission, then it is illegal. Period. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the BS of 'removal' numbers that are on the faxes. It is merely an attempt to legitimize the industry as much as spammers try to suggest remove address make them ethical.
2) Prerecorded commercial solicitations to your home may NOt be initiated without the EXPRESS permission of the owner. An exemption (unlike junk faxes) would be an EBR. Calls made for survey, political speech, or non commercial are exempt.
If you receive either of the above offenses, then you are immediately owed $500 per VIOLATION by the person initiating the call and on who's behalf the call is made.
That law provides a private right of action. Meaning you are specifically given the authority to sue them in court. While you cannot sue someone that litters on the highway, Congress provided this right. this pretty much makes you a private attorney general of your domain in regards to telemarketing.
Live calls are regulated. They must identify themselves by the caller's name, entity placing the call, and an address or phone number by which they may be contacted. This MUST be provided without your even asking. The company MUST have a DNC (do not call) policy in place before making such calls. They MUST provide you with a written copy of that DNC policy upon request. NEVER, ever allow the telemarketer say they will take your name off 'the list'. Specifically DEMAND that they ADD your name to their company's Do-Not-Call list (emphasis added).
The telemarketing is claiming the loss of millions of jobs. Yet they have not specified in what country. Do many of you not realize how many outbound call centers are in countries like India? The law by not affect that out-of-country company directly in terms of jurisdiction, but it does put liability on companies on who's behalf the call is placed. The only way a company can get by completely is if they are based and operate outside the country and have no business presence in any area under the jurisdiction of the US.
I have gone to court several times against telemarketers. If people knew their rights and enforced them by bringing suit in court as Congress intended, then a national list would not be necessary. the companies would simply not be able to operate.
I'll bite. The established business relationship idea is teh same as what is written regarding junk faxes and prerecorded solicitations. That law has been around for over a decade (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Just because you had an EBR (establish business relationship) it does not mean that you cannot end it. For example, my local paper made a telemarketing call to me, and since I have an EBR with them, there was no problem. I asked for, and received, a copy of their policy regarding their do-not-call list and stated I was terminating the EBR in terms of future telemarketing. No, I can still be a subscriber, yet any telemarketing calls I get from them in the future will be illegal, and I can subsequently claim statutory damages.
If they allow you to unsubscribe, or more pointedly terminate the EBR in regards to future marketing, then there isn't a real problem that I would see. Most of the spam is not from reputable companies, it is the fly-by-night ethicless scammers. I have no problem unsubscribing from a EBR and can be comfortable that I won't have to do it again.
What we need to a powerhorse like MSoft to bring the first fights and have solid case law that we all can use later. This, in tern, allows smaller ISPS to use the case law to their benefit without having to go to the enormous expense to see a case like this through. It will take several cases before spammers back off, but if this goes through, then you will see things start to taper off. The exact thing happened in the junk faxing world..a few cases open up company's eyes in terms of compliance.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 already provides a private right of action where you can collect $500 per violation with there often being more than one violation per call.
60m on air? you are quite a bit away from clufullness if you think that point is the limit of air. I don't dive below 120ft (40m) on air, hell rarely below 100ft (33m) on air. Anything below that needs trimix. People that trust dive computers for deco diving are strokes. don't listen to strokes and don't dive with strokes. BSAC divers are also the ones that kill themselves on the Buddy Inspiration rebreathers more often than anyone else.
You are a 'certified rescue diver'? That has as much weight in the diving community as saying you are 'Network +' certified in a room full of CCNPs. You are positively wrong. The dive computer uses algorithms to calculate the amount of nitrogen going into and out of the tissue compartments. Different pressures affect the rate you on and off gas. If you drop to 100 feet, you are absorbing gas quickly. If you then ascend to 80 feet, you will off-gas some of the absorbed nitrogen at one rate and yet still on-gas nitrogen at a different rate. Ascend again and the same thing occurs, off gas some of the previous nitrogen and still on gas nitrogen at another rate. This is called 'multi-level' diving. Tables assume you are at the deepest depth for the whole dive. If you were to do a square profile (descend, stay at one depth, and then do a straight ascent) then a dive computer has a lesser no-decompression limit than the table would. What you have confused is a dive computer that is air integrated. that may, as a feature, have a different display that calculates your given air consumption and figures out how long you may stay at depth before reaching a reserve point (generally 500 psi). That is simple algebra, but decompression algorithms are a lot more complicated.
I should know, I teach this several times a month as a current and experienced dive instructor (check my profile) and use this information weekly on my technical dives to wrecks where we (my dive group) consider anything above 200 feet to be shallow. I have been on most of the sites that the article mentioned in passing (Florida caves [look at my web site]), the Andrea Doria, U-boats, etc.
Dive computers may be used to help avoid decompression, but not for decompression diving. I generate my own tables for any technical dive. Most people commenting here so far seem just to be newbie divers themselves. It is like someone that just finished a VB class starts spouting off about C++.
Most divers don't know how to properly ascend and decompress as it is. for the laymen, think of it like a soda bottle that is slightly agitated with dissolved gases (CO2). You would slowly open the bottle until there is a slight release in pressure and then close it; allows gasses to equalize, and then open, stop, repeat. You are allowing the gas to escape slowly enough that bubbles do not form. In the case of diving and human bodies, it is to prevent nitrogen from forming bubbles. Most divers just do direct ascents too quickly or a quickly stop at 15 feet before hitting the surface. The best way to ascend is to do a full stop (assuming a deep dive) at 40 feet for 15-20 seconds, stop at 30 feet for 30-60 seconds, stop at 20 60 seconds, and a stop at 10 for 120-180 seconds. this allows the nitrogen time to slowly come out at a slow rate; i.e. like opening the coke bottle slowly so it doesn't spill over.
If you decompress properly, then flying isn't a big deal. The general problem with flying after diving is the reduced pressure. You are going at a reduced pressure (most commercial craft will pressurize to no more than 8000 feet) so the nitrogen currently in the body comes out more quickly.
What message are you referring to. The one to which I replied stated "routinely we would record our calls". How do you possibly construe "he told them it was being recorded"? Telling them it was being recorded would mee tthe requirement, but there was no indicitation that they did this.
The reason they hung up if others told them it was being recorded is that telemarketers will routinely doctor their tapes, but figure that anyone recording is smart enough to know the law and thus not likely to get a sale.
You were wrong. It is not illegal to place calls to a cellular phone when you use that number as a contact method. Since you provided your number to the company for the knowing purpose of having them use that method to contact you, then you have provided prior express permission. I use my cell number for Columbia House memberships because, and they have contacted me. On the first call, I simply said I wasn't interested and hung up. My fault, I know, since I did not asked to be placed on the Do-Not-Call list...I was in a hurry. The second call I got was a few days later, same pitch. I then asked to be placed on the DNC list and a copy of the company's policy (as required by the TCPA). A few days later, I got a call at 9:03PM. I again damanded placement on the DNC list. The thing is, next time they call me, I will sue them in court for multiple violations, including the call past the allowed time..easy to prove by my cell bill. Remember, you may terminate a business relationship for the purposes of telemarketing, yet still do business with them. They may, of course, contact you in regards to your account (e.g. bill adjustments, debt collection [within bounds as allowed by other laws], etc) but not to try to sell more services.
The problem of thinking you know the law and getting it completely worng is worse than not knowing the law exists at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is one [http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/broadbandnetwor king/productdetails.aspx?pid=003]
Oh wait..we hate them too.
Besides Slashdot.org, send copies ofcomplaints to Belkin (Deming seems to be the perfect person) as well as consumer media outlets like Tech TV, PC Magazine, and other tech websites. Spread the information so hopefully when searchs of the word Belkin are made, the results of the complaints and the problem itself will be returned.
Your right of free speech stops at my mailbox. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.
0 3/022705P.p df
Can you imagine a whole new class of "door-to-door" salesmen who knocked on your door, entered your house uninvited, demanded the use of your possessions, showed their product and then claimed that you had no right to stop them because it would violate their right of free speech?
The TCPA has been around for over 10 years now and has been upheld to be constitutional, but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying the same old arguments again and again. They include: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997). Linder v. Thrifty Oil negates the popular "minimal harm" argument.
Because cert to the US Supreme Court was denied in the 9th Circuit, it means that the operating law is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which unanimously upheld the TCPA as constitutional. The 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits so this ruling holds a lot of weight. It covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, federal district courts in three circuits have also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA.
An 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. Limbaugh's bogus ruling was reversed, as we predicted, by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21, 2003. (it is important for you all to understand the differences between a ruling being reversed, remanded, or otherwise directed. Reversed pretty much means that something was in such gross error, it should have never existed.)
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/
More infor can be found at junkfax.org
Once you make a DNC request, the company is not allowed to call you for 10 years. That is as straight forward as it gets.
2 003/db1103/FCC-03-267A1.pdf
:"... We note, however, that unsolicited facsimile advertising is unlawful under section 64.1200(a)(3) of our rules even when a consumer has not requested that such transmissions be halted."
The part where it gets interesting is that you cannot bring about your own private right of action unless they call you at least twice, in violation of your DNC request, within a single 12 month span. So only on a third call, assuming that you had made the demand at least twice before, can you sue, however you can bring about action for all the violations once your private right of action exists. The most recent FCC M&O did not change the rule.
Here is the URL for the spanking that FCC is giving AT&T. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/
For those keeping up with such things, there is a good footnote for those against junk faxers.
#23
What all other laws with statutory penalties?
Cut down a tree in your own yard in many jurisdictions and you'll be paying out thousands in fines. Who is the victim there. Shouldn't you be allowed to cut down your own 200 year old oak tree if you want?
Littering on the highway is victimless...right? That will get you a $500 minimum fine in some states.
Junk faxes my only cost you a few pennies, but you can collect $500 from a company that sends it. The law prohibiting it has been around for over a decade. Every SINGLE federal court district that has hear issues of 'free speech' and junk faxing have denied the complaints. Commercial speech does NOT have the same protections nor should it.
That fact is that such activity is not victimless. Admins have to constantly adjust and upgrade mail servers to try to stop the flow or manage the load. That costs time and money, and those costs are passed on to you and me.
The only way to stop this kind of behavior is to make it no longer viable for them to do this. The Government doesn't have the resources, so a private right of action is the key. If it wasn't for those of use that take on telemarketers and junk faxers, I guarantee that it would be a much larger problem.
Funny that you mention that. I am literally typing this inside a Subway eating dinner while sharing a broadband DSL connection that is being piped to me by an eye care (actually called ICare) outlet two doors down!
Ijust turned on my laptop to write a letter and my console indicated a connection. How nice for them to offer this to anyone.
I cannot believe that this the post was modded\ +5 insightful. There is nothing insightful about it in the least..merely guesswork and incorrect assumptions.
Why doesn't someone just go to court?
Some people just might go, but cases cost a LOT of money and take a lot of time. Even winning a case of this level will cost you thousands of dollars.
When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for
This shows a complete lack of the legal system. Any settlement can easily turn into a garnishment of future wages. A judgment can remain in effect for a long time, so as soon as you get anything, such as inheritance, then that will be removed. A public judgment against you makes you a risk to a business. What do you have right now in your home? Look around, since if you lost large, you wouldn't have any of that now.
Even if I lost it would cost them money
Again, proof of any understanding of the legal system. This kind of case easily has lawyer's fees included in the judgment. Again, there is the forfeiture of anything you own now or garnishment of anything you own in the future until the judgement is satisfied, with interest.
bullying people under the threat of litigation is a lucrative way of doing business
They have tried other methods, unfortunately this is going to be the most effective method to combat the problem.
ludricrous [sic] that downloading 100 songs would incur a $15 million dollar fine
Where do you draw the line. Some people would think that a judgment of $500-1500 for sending a single junk fax is harsh, but that is legal. It is difficult to quantify damages. This action is being taken as a deterrent, and it seems to be decently effective.
Isn't there some sort of law against using the threat of expensive litigation to get people to just give you some sort of money
This lack of knowledge is completely pathetic. Blackmail is the extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information. RIAA isn't the ones publishing identities of anyone. Someone violated the law and the company is saying, we're willing to settle for less than the statutory damages already owed. When I send demand letters to companies that violate telemarketing laws, 7 times out of 10 someone makes a claim of blackmail or extortion, however once we get to court or they talk to a lawyer, it never comes up again.
Instead of sounding off on something that you obviously know so little about, why don't you pick up even the most rudimentary law book so you do not go around quite to ignorant anymore about a system that has a substantial effect on your life.
Thanks for pointing out the device. Looking around, I found it at least $34.95(though with $4 UPS shipping here:
Or $35.95 here with free shipping.
Thanks for pointing that out. It will be a handy item.
Per the TCPA (47 USC 227) prerecorded calls may be made by, or on behalf of, non-profit organizations. Since debt-consolidation agencies have to be non-profit there are people that create or run two companies for the purpose of getting around this. Integrated Credit Solutions (Flagship) is engaged in the business of marketing and providing call center support for tax-exempt organizations such as Lighthouse Credit Foundation. Lighthouse Credit Foundation, is the "tax-exempt non-profit organization" in whose "behalf" ICS makes the calls.
c h8_02.htm1 =Press+Releases§ion=5i dalegal.com/lit_ec.nsf/0/96159EA0F81 DA9E885256A8700650763?OpenDocumentp ://www.ago.state.mo.us/071201.htm
They are located in the very same building, have the same in-house counsel, and are breaking the law by trying to use smoke and mirrors. Each have their hands in the pockets of the other, and it isn't just to take a dollar out. Of course most aren't buying it, including the attorney generals of several states;
New York http://www.state.ny.us/governor/ltgov/press99/mar
Massachusetts http://www.ago.state.ma.us/press_rel/ics.asp?head
Florida
http://myflor
Missouri
htt
http://news.findlaw.com/usatoday/docs/ftc/donotcal l92303ord.pdf
You should take time to read the order and learn about the issues involved.
Many companies in the World Trade Center thought that off-site backup meant the other building.
For those that are interested in learning something: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/begs.html
Besides making your complaint heard among a crowd of complainers, which will not be heard by the people responsible, why not complain to those that are responsible for this? Emails to kazaa.com might be ignored, but those to the law firms must be read by someone. It is hard for them to simply do a mass delete of emails since doing so will severely limit their ability to represent the client. especially when they delete something that may have bearing on the case.
.jpg format, I assume to stop spam bots from harvesting, but for those interested:
The posted complaint had the user specific data removed, but the domain information remained (biztechlaw.com).
Whois info for, biztechlaw.com (note: they canot even properlly spell their own company name):
Registrant:
Business & Technolgy Law Group
19687 Los Alimos Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
US
Domain name: BIZTECHLAW.COM
Administrative Contact:
Alderton, Scott salderton@eglgroup.com
19687 Los Alimos Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
US
818-486-1970 Fax: 818-363-7249
Technical Contact:
Administrator, Domain domreg@infostreet.com
18345 Ventura Blvd
Ste 416
Tarzana, CA 91356
US
818 776 8080 Fax: 818 776 2999
Registration Service Provider:
InfoStreet, Inc., domreg@infostreet.com
818 776 8080
This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 18-Aug-2003.
Record expires on 22-Mar-2012.
Record Created on 22-Mar-2002.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BDE3D.COM 66.186.13.144
NS.BDE3D.COM 64.60.8.163
A google search of biztechlaw.com also shows and email address of salderton@biztechlaw.com.
A search on this guy turns up a bit of irony as one of the first hits: "Scott Alderton will moderate a panel discussion on "Venturing in New Media: A Content Meltdown?" " Content meltdown eh?
The contact page on their website is in
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
15821 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 525
Encino, CA 91436
office 818-444-4500
fax 818-444-4520
email info@biztechlaw.com
The partners seem to be Scott Alderton (direct 818-444-4501; fax 818-474-8601; salderton@biztechlaw.com), Joe Stubbs (direct 818-444-4507; fax 818-474-8607; jstubbs@biztechlaw.com), and Murray Markiles (direct,818.444.4505; fax 818-474-8605; mmarkiles@biztechlaw.com).
Those that participate in usenet, copy the data and post it so interested parties may contact Kazaa'a representation so as to convey their personal opinions. I sent them an email already of what I felt concerning their actions and those of their client.
Here is a google cache of the perp's siteD R3mcJ: t33kid.com/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
o e=UTF-8&safe=off&q=teekid&sa=N&tab=iw"
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:FEZleH
The current site "http://www.t33kid.com/" has been removed.
A google search on 'teekid' brings up quite a bit. "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&
[i]Of course they can. However, barring certain exceptions [donotcall.gov], it is illegal for them to do so if your name is on the national do-not-call list. [/i]
This is absolutely incorrect. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (yes, over a decade ago) has made calls to numbers where the person must pay for the call (i.e. cell phones) illegal. There are few exceptions (such as where you specifically gave the organization calling your number as the point of contact. However if your organization were to sell the number, anyone else calling would be in violation.)
[i]Alternately, it is illegal for any telemarketer to call you if you have requested to be added to their own "do-not-call" list. Note: telling them "don't call me" or "take me off your list" might not be sufficient, you must ask to be added to their "do-not-call list". [/i]
Finally, a few people understand this. This is extremely important. Also say specifically "Add me to your do-not-call list" and "Send me a copy of your policy regarding the maintence of your do-not-call list". You should do this without exception.
[i]My understanding is, the fact that you pay for time spent on incoming calls doesn't protect you in any way from any call. [/i]
Your understandiong is, unfortunately, incorrect. The whole idea behind the pay-per-call and junk fax provisions were to prevent people from having to pay for the advertising of another. Junk faxes have been illegal for over a decade. There is NO established business relationship that would allow a junk fax. If you do business with a company and they send you a weekly ad without your prior EXPRESS permission, then they are in as much violation of the law as the random loan or vacation fax that you get.
[i]If anything, it makes you more vulnerable, and makes registering the number on the do-not-call more useful. [/i]
It makes it more useful for the government, but not really for you. The new rules do not provide a private right of action if you get called when you are on the list. You only have a private right of action if they make two calls in violation of the law withing a 12 month period, though it hasn't been decided if a firs call is a violation that would count. Time and additional rulings will tell.
Well that's easy..purchase all the materials out of state and even deny them of the sales tax and increase unemployment at the same time. Wonderful solution by the state.
I did not quite get 5000, however I just came home to see over 180 messages. The real ironic/confusing thing is that *every* single one of them were to the address I use to post on slashdot. I get occasional spams by however spammers lift the address from this board, however I do not see how or why this virus would be sent to me so many times.
I have never received any emails from a human to my slashdot address (not even responses to my comments), so I don't see how my address would be in anyone's Outlook book. I wonder if a spammer got infected and their spam lists got used as a target.
I thought the email addresses associated with our profiles were hidden in some way to prevent spam harvesting. Quite confusing.
You know, I don't think that I would want to see the website up. If it was, then I wonder if the IT guys decided to host it off site in case of..umm..power failure.
The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991) (47 USC 227 and subsequent FCC regulations of CFR 64.1200) have outlawed several practices and create certain requirements for others.
Two things completely outlawed:
1) Junk faxes - unsolicited commercial faxes may NOT be sent without WRITTEN authorization of the fax machine/line owner. Period. There is NO EBR (established business relationship) that would exempt that. If you are sent an advertisement and did not specifically give your (express) permission, then it is illegal. Period. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the BS of 'removal' numbers that are on the faxes. It is merely an attempt to legitimize the industry as much as spammers try to suggest remove address make them ethical.
2) Prerecorded commercial solicitations to your home may NOt be initiated without the EXPRESS permission of the owner. An exemption (unlike junk faxes) would be an EBR. Calls made for survey, political speech, or non commercial are exempt.
If you receive either of the above offenses, then you are immediately owed $500 per VIOLATION by the person initiating the call and on who's behalf the call is made.
That law provides a private right of action. Meaning you are specifically given the authority to sue them in court. While you cannot sue someone that litters on the highway, Congress provided this right. this pretty much makes you a private attorney general of your domain in regards to telemarketing.
Live calls are regulated. They must identify themselves by the caller's name, entity placing the call, and an address or phone number by which they may be contacted. This MUST be provided without your even asking. The company MUST have a DNC (do not call) policy in place before making such calls. They MUST provide you with a written copy of that DNC policy upon request. NEVER, ever allow the telemarketer say they will take your name off 'the list'. Specifically DEMAND that they ADD your name to their company's Do-Not-Call list (emphasis added).
The telemarketing is claiming the loss of millions of jobs. Yet they have not specified in what country. Do many of you not realize how many outbound call centers are in countries like India? The law by not affect that out-of-country company directly in terms of jurisdiction, but it does put liability on companies on who's behalf the call is placed. The only way a company can get by completely is if they are based and operate outside the country and have no business presence in any area under the jurisdiction of the US.
I have gone to court several times against telemarketers. If people knew their rights and enforced them by bringing suit in court as Congress intended, then a national list would not be necessary. the companies would simply not be able to operate.
I'll bite. The established business relationship idea is teh same as what is written regarding junk faxes and prerecorded solicitations. That law has been around for over a decade (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Just because you had an EBR (establish business relationship) it does not mean that you cannot end it. For example, my local paper made a telemarketing call to me, and since I have an EBR with them, there was no problem. I asked for, and received, a copy of their policy regarding their do-not-call list and stated I was terminating the EBR in terms of future telemarketing. No, I can still be a subscriber, yet any telemarketing calls I get from them in the future will be illegal, and I can subsequently claim statutory damages.
If they allow you to unsubscribe, or more pointedly terminate the EBR in regards to future marketing, then there isn't a real problem that I would see. Most of the spam is not from reputable companies, it is the fly-by-night ethicless scammers. I have no problem unsubscribing from a EBR and can be comfortable that I won't have to do it again.
What we need to a powerhorse like MSoft to bring the first fights and have solid case law that we all can use later. This, in tern, allows smaller ISPS to use the case law to their benefit without having to go to the enormous expense to see a case like this through. It will take several cases before spammers back off, but if this goes through, then you will see things start to taper off. The exact thing happened in the junk faxing world..a few cases open up company's eyes in terms of compliance.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 already provides a private right of action where you can collect $500 per violation with there often being more than one violation per call.
60m on air? you are quite a bit away from clufullness if you think that point is the limit of air. I don't dive below 120ft (40m) on air, hell rarely below 100ft (33m) on air. Anything below that needs trimix. People that trust dive computers for deco diving are strokes. don't listen to strokes and don't dive with strokes. BSAC divers are also the ones that kill themselves on the Buddy Inspiration rebreathers more often than anyone else.
You are a 'certified rescue diver'? That has as much weight in the diving community as saying you are 'Network +' certified in a room full of CCNPs. You are positively wrong.
The dive computer uses algorithms to calculate the amount of nitrogen going into and out of the tissue compartments. Different pressures affect the rate you on and off gas. If you drop to 100 feet, you are absorbing gas quickly. If you then ascend to 80 feet, you will off-gas some of the absorbed nitrogen at one rate and yet still on-gas nitrogen at a different rate. Ascend again and the same thing occurs, off gas some of the previous nitrogen and still on gas nitrogen at another rate. This is called 'multi-level' diving. Tables assume you are at the deepest depth for the whole dive. If you were to do a square profile (descend, stay at one depth, and then do a straight ascent) then a dive computer has a lesser no-decompression limit than the table would. What you have confused is a dive computer that is air integrated. that may, as a feature, have a different display that calculates your given air consumption and figures out how long you may stay at depth before reaching a reserve point (generally 500 psi). That is simple algebra, but decompression algorithms are a lot more complicated.
I should know, I teach this several times a month as a current and experienced dive instructor (check my profile) and use this information weekly on my technical dives to wrecks where we (my dive group) consider anything above 200 feet to be shallow. I have been on most of the sites that the article mentioned in passing (Florida caves [look at my web site]), the Andrea Doria, U-boats, etc.
Dive computers may be used to help avoid decompression, but not for decompression diving. I generate my own tables for any technical dive. Most people commenting here so far seem just to be newbie divers themselves. It is like someone that just finished a VB class starts spouting off about C++.
Most divers don't know how to properly ascend and decompress as it is. for the laymen, think of it like a soda bottle that is slightly agitated with dissolved gases (CO2). You would slowly open the bottle until there is a slight release in pressure and then close it; allows gasses to equalize, and then open, stop, repeat. You are allowing the gas to escape slowly enough that bubbles do not form. In the case of diving and human bodies, it is to prevent nitrogen from forming bubbles. Most divers just do direct ascents too quickly or a quickly stop at 15 feet before hitting the surface. The best way to ascend is to do a full stop (assuming a deep dive) at 40 feet for 15-20 seconds, stop at 30 feet for 30-60 seconds, stop at 20 60 seconds, and a stop at 10 for 120-180 seconds. this allows the nitrogen time to slowly come out at a slow rate; i.e. like opening the coke bottle slowly so it doesn't spill over.
If you decompress properly, then flying isn't a big deal. The general problem with flying after diving is the reduced pressure. You are going at a reduced pressure (most commercial craft will pressurize to no more than 8000 feet) so the nitrogen currently in the body comes out more quickly.
What message are you referring to. The one to which I replied stated "routinely we would record our calls". How do you possibly construe "he told them it was being recorded"? Telling them it was being recorded would mee tthe requirement, but there was no indicitation that they did this.
The reason they hung up if others told them it was being recorded is that telemarketers will routinely doctor their tapes, but figure that anyone recording is smart enough to know the law and thus not likely to get a sale.
You were wrong. It is not illegal to place calls to a cellular phone when you use that number as a contact method. Since you provided your number to the company for the knowing purpose of having them use that method to contact you, then you have provided prior express permission. I use my cell number for Columbia House memberships because, and they have contacted me. On the first call, I simply said I wasn't interested and hung up. My fault, I know, since I did not asked to be placed on the Do-Not-Call list...I was in a hurry. The second call I got was a few days later, same pitch. I then asked to be placed on the DNC list and a copy of the company's policy (as required by the TCPA). A few days later, I got a call at 9:03PM. I again damanded placement on the DNC list. The thing is, next time they call me, I will sue them in court for multiple violations, including the call past the allowed time..easy to prove by my cell bill. Remember, you may terminate a business relationship for the purposes of telemarketing, yet still do business with them. They may, of course, contact you in regards to your account (e.g. bill adjustments, debt collection [within bounds as allowed by other laws], etc) but not to try to sell more services.
The problem of thinking you know the law and getting it completely worng is worse than not knowing the law exists at all.