This is mostly just a law to close a loophole. In current Colorado law, if the offending email doesn't follow certain rules ("ADV:" in the Subject, etc.), the recipient can take the spammer to Small Claims and win $10 -- if they can somehow collect it.
One possible legal defense for spammers is to claim that they didn't know the recipient was in Colorado. This would create a directory of emails so that the spammer should have reasonably known that the recipient was in Colorado and shouldn't be contacted.
Overall, though, I'd like to see the list be free, too. Spammers can easily avoid court if they opt to 'go renegade' and not check to make sure no Colorado or Missouri residents receive the email -- because the costs of losing are so much less than having to buy several lists of people not to email. If it were free, they might be more inclined to check.
The RIAA's statistics are questionable. "Preliminary" survey? By what company?
Who did they survey? "tech savvy online music enthusiasts" is a pretty limited statement - they're not talking about the average kid with a CD-R on his new Compaq. Are they talking about music enthusiasts who happen to be online? Doubtful. They'd get better results by surveying enthusiasts of music that is online.
Sure, one out of two customers (more like one out of every 50 true customers - they left out the word "surveyed" customers in hopes that the media would quote just that part, leaving out the details of who was surveyed) may have downloaded music within the past month, but the RIAA pulls a bait-and-switch here: "and nearly 70 percent burned the music they downloaded". What - 70% of the music they downloaded in the past month? Doubtful.
I'll wait until an independent company runs a clean poll before I give the RIAA any credit. This is, after all, the same company that tricked the AP into reporting that "CD sales" were down by 5% (neglecting to mention that they were CD single sales).
Slashdot Mirror
This is mostly just a law to close a loophole. In current Colorado law, if the offending email doesn't follow certain rules ("ADV:" in the Subject, etc.), the recipient can take the spammer to Small Claims and win $10 -- if they can somehow collect it.
One possible legal defense for spammers is to claim that they didn't know the recipient was in Colorado. This would create a directory of emails so that the spammer should have reasonably known that the recipient was in Colorado and shouldn't be contacted.
Overall, though, I'd like to see the list be free, too. Spammers can easily avoid court if they opt to 'go renegade' and not check to make sure no Colorado or Missouri residents receive the email -- because the costs of losing are so much less than having to buy several lists of people not to email. If it were free, they might be more inclined to check.
That should read "What - 70% burned that music they downloaded in the past month? Doubtful."
The RIAA's statistics are questionable. "Preliminary" survey? By what company?
Who did they survey? "tech savvy online music enthusiasts" is a pretty limited statement - they're not talking about the average kid with a CD-R on his new Compaq. Are they talking about music enthusiasts who happen to be online? Doubtful. They'd get better results by surveying enthusiasts of music that is online.
Sure, one out of two customers (more like one out of every 50 true customers - they left out the word "surveyed" customers in hopes that the media would quote just that part, leaving out the details of who was surveyed) may have downloaded music within the past month, but the RIAA pulls a bait-and-switch here: "and nearly 70 percent burned the music they downloaded". What - 70% of the music they downloaded in the past month? Doubtful.
I'll wait until an independent company runs a clean poll before I give the RIAA any credit. This is, after all, the same company that tricked the AP into reporting that "CD sales" were down by 5% (neglecting to mention that they were CD single sales).