TekPolitik: "If somebody else has their mail server for one purpose, and you exploit it for another contrary to their stated wishes, you are forcing that use on them, period."
Me: "Besides, most people have not 'stated wishes' to not be spammed, certainly not to the spammers."
I never said that it's OK to do anything which does not go against someone's "stated wishes." I merely said that spam does not go against someone's "stated wishes."
Okay how can I make this clear - Unless I have a big flashing website, with red borders saying "Please send me fraudulent cr*p" - I do not want spam.
OK. That made it clear to me and the other 10 people who read this, but that's it. If you want to make it clear to everyone, then you need a Do-Not-Email list.
The industry standard is that when you request information from a web site, you get the current version.
Sometimes. If the current version isn't available (for instance because you're offline), then you get whatever is in the cache.
I'm mainly thinking of google, here. Google isn't intentionally displaying old content, and they take it down after a rather short period of time. Presumably they adhere to the "Expires" header and other relevant information. Certainly they adhere to the robots exclusion and things like that. Archive.org is a different story. They'd probably have to rely at least in part on fair use, which is much less black and white.
With consent. This is not a right - it is a privelege granted by the owner (or more accurately, the possessor). I don't have a right to do so just because it's possible, but Andover consents to this use. Indeed there is implied consent to use the facility within its apparent purpose that arises from making the facility available, but if Andover told me to never post again, this would withdraw consent - both express and implied - and I would have neither the right nor the privilege to post, and doing so would amount to a trespass. This is like what happened with Intel and Hamidi.
So spam is fine until you tell the spammer to stop.
You appear to be confusing morality with ethics. Morality is a subjective view, and there are currently available centuries of philosophical and legal discourse that assert that ownership is moral. There are older writings, but most Western ones didn't survive the Dark Ages. There are also contrary views, but they are hardly dominant in western society.
So why do I have to agree with whatever is dominant in western society?
I gave references in two other posts, but here it is again, for the US at least. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html It's part of the DMCA. In part, " the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies"
Probably not, because that would fall under fair use. But if you then went on to redistribute that picture over the internet, you probably would be breaking the law.
So equally if I steal your car, I haven't forced you to buy another, claim on insurance, take a bus in the interim.
Of course you haven't. Lots of people have had their cars stolen and didn't buy another, claim on insurance, and take a bus in the interim.
Or... "I really forced you to have ears".
That's an even better analogy. My freedom of speech means I can say what I want. Just because you hear me doesn't mean I forced you to listen.
If somebody else has their mail server for one purpose, and you exploit it for another contrary to their stated wishes, you are forcing that use on them, period.
Well, that's just not true. Besides, most people have not "stated wishes" to not be spammed, certainly not to the spammers.
It's the owner of the thing that gets to say how it's used.
The computer is used in whatever way the owner set it up to be used. The spammer is merely sending bits over a wire.
Regardless, if the archive continues after the original site is taken down, it is no longer a cache, it is an outright copy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an outright copy." It's always an outright copy. But if the archive continues after the original site is taken down, it's still a cache.
If that site is then updated in some critical way, the numerous caches all over the web won't be (at least not immediately, and it is clearly unreasonable to expect anyone publishing a website to notify them all).
The legally exception requires that you adhere to internet standards. Thus you have to adhere to the robots-exclusion standard, the "Cache-Control: no-cache" HTTP header, and the "Expires" HTTP header, among others.
IANAL, but there's a chasm between commercial speech and noncommercial speech you could drive several dump trucks through.
Sure, but this ruling wasn't based on that chasm.
Witness the national do-not-call list.
But congress approved the national do-not-call list. Congress never approved a national do-not-email list. Once they do, then these spam problems will be solved. Let's go FTC.
Maybe I need to start making legal threats, it just seems like so much bother.
Well you are apparently being bothered by not making legal threats, too. Supposedly it's really easy to sue these guys, but I've never actually done it. All the telemarketing calls I've received were from companies with which I've had a pre-existing business relationship. Columbia House did call three times, but then again I've had at least three accounts with them. So while they may have technically broken the law (if I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's when I told them to stop calling me), I'm not even sure.
Now imagine that you pay when you make a call, not when you receive it?
Why should the caller have to pay just because the sender is on some remote island? The receiver is the one benefiting from the mobility of the phone, therefore the receiver should pay for it. If you want free incoming calls, get a land-line.
The point of SMS is that its a good way to leave a message without having to frig around with voicemail. Here in oz we pay about 20c to send a message and nothing to receive it, so it's cheap enough
I'd rather leave a voice mail for free than pay 20c to send a message.
but no-one's going to sent 10,000 spam texts for a 0.1% return at 20c a go! Hence NO SPAM. That's my point.
No one's going to send 10,000 spam texts here either, because they know they'll get their asses sued into bankruptcy.
If any cellphone provider in Europe would be stupid enough to start billing from receiving calls and messages, people would vote with their feet so damn fast that company would be bankrupt in a nanosecond.
Whereas here in the United States, if a cellphone provider would be stupid enough to start billing from sending calls and messages, people would run away just as quickly.
I can also send messages from 'net and be billed for it in phone bill, if "receiver pays" really is only thing you can come up that will allow people to send messages with something other than a phone, bzzt, next try.
I've had a number of people send me text messages who didn't have cell phones.
I know that electronic payment systems are centuries behind in US, but anything that simple still shouldn't be impossible.
Impossible? No. But expensive. Much more expensive than just dropping charges when people bitch about getting spammed.
But listen. If all you care about is spammers, why not set up the charges this way. Don't charge for all messages, just charge for spam messages.
There is a point. For a short message an SMS has the advantage of not forcing that person to take it at the moment you call.
I don't know. That advantage generally isn't worth $0.10 to me.
Since it is impolite (if you don't agree, I hate you) to take calls in a theatre , on a tennis court, etc., or even if you are talking to someone, SMS is the way to go.
If you're in these places your phone is probably off, so voice mail is just as effective (and non-intrusive). I guess it depends on the person, though. Everyone's going to have different rules with regard to calling them on their cell phone. Personally I only receive calls on my cell phone, so I fully expect people to call me for stupid little things and if I don't want to be bothered with it I'll just not answer or turn the phone off.
And guess what, it costs a lot less than voice mail!
Now that's especially strange. Telemarketing to a cell phone is highly illegal unless you meet certain specific criteria. Were these companies with which you've had an existing business relationship? I've gotten 5 in the three years I've had the phone, but 2 have been from credit card companies, and 3 from Columbia House. I could actually sue Columbia House if I felt like it. But it's not like I actually paid for the call since I was under my limit anyway. I'm probably not going to bother.
The new FTC (or is it FCC?) rules are that all telemarketers have to send real caller-ID information from now on. That should make cell phone telemarketers a lot less intrusive and expensive, at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's look at "that logic."
TekPolitik: "If somebody else has their mail server for one purpose, and you exploit it for another contrary to their stated wishes, you are forcing that use on them, period."
Me: "Besides, most people have not 'stated wishes' to not be spammed, certainly not to the spammers."
I never said that it's OK to do anything which does not go against someone's "stated wishes." I merely said that spam does not go against someone's "stated wishes."
Please, learn to read.
Okay how can I make this clear - Unless I have a big flashing website, with red borders saying "Please send me fraudulent cr*p" - I do not want spam.
OK. That made it clear to me and the other 10 people who read this, but that's it. If you want to make it clear to everyone, then you need a Do-Not-Email list.
The industry standard is that when you request information from a web site, you get the current version.
Sometimes. If the current version isn't available (for instance because you're offline), then you get whatever is in the cache.
I'm mainly thinking of google, here. Google isn't intentionally displaying old content, and they take it down after a rather short period of time. Presumably they adhere to the "Expires" header and other relevant information. Certainly they adhere to the robots exclusion and things like that. Archive.org is a different story. They'd probably have to rely at least in part on fair use, which is much less black and white.
With consent. This is not a right - it is a privelege granted by the owner (or more accurately, the possessor). I don't have a right to do so just because it's possible, but Andover consents to this use. Indeed there is implied consent to use the facility within its apparent purpose that arises from making the facility available, but if Andover told me to never post again, this would withdraw consent - both express and implied - and I would have neither the right nor the privilege to post, and doing so would amount to a trespass. This is like what happened with Intel and Hamidi.
So spam is fine until you tell the spammer to stop.
You appear to be confusing morality with ethics. Morality is a subjective view, and there are currently available centuries of philosophical and legal discourse that assert that ownership is moral. There are older writings, but most Western ones didn't survive the Dark Ages. There are also contrary views, but they are hardly dominant in western society.
So why do I have to agree with whatever is dominant in western society?
You simply do not have the right to determine how other peoples' stuff can be used, no matter how easy or possible it is to do so.
But you yourself, by posting that message, just determined how Slashdot's hard drive is used.
You don't have that right morally, and you don't have it legally.
Morally? Morality knows no such thing as "ownership."
I gave references in two other posts, but here it is again, for the US at least. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html It's part of the DMCA. In part, " the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies"
Probably not, because that would fall under fair use. But if you then went on to redistribute that picture over the internet, you probably would be breaking the law.
So equally if I steal your car, I haven't forced you to buy another, claim on insurance, take a bus in the interim.
Of course you haven't. Lots of people have had their cars stolen and didn't buy another, claim on insurance, and take a bus in the interim.
Or... "I really forced you to have ears".
That's an even better analogy. My freedom of speech means I can say what I want. Just because you hear me doesn't mean I forced you to listen.
If somebody else has their mail server for one purpose, and you exploit it for another contrary to their stated wishes, you are forcing that use on them, period.
Well, that's just not true. Besides, most people have not "stated wishes" to not be spammed, certainly not to the spammers.
It's the owner of the thing that gets to say how it's used.
The computer is used in whatever way the owner set it up to be used. The spammer is merely sending bits over a wire.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
Regardless, if the archive continues after the original site is taken down, it is no longer a cache, it is an outright copy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an outright copy." It's always an outright copy. But if the archive continues after the original site is taken down, it's still a cache.
If that site is then updated in some critical way, the numerous caches all over the web won't be (at least not immediately, and it is clearly unreasonable to expect anyone publishing a website to notify them all).
The legally exception requires that you adhere to internet standards. Thus you have to adhere to the robots-exclusion standard, the "Cache-Control: no-cache" HTTP header, and the "Expires" HTTP header, among others.
Yes but it doesn't have an exception for taking pictures of "anything out in public view."
You can't just zero out the energy used to recycle CO2 into breathable O2.
Very little of the energy that hits the earth gets used to recycle CO2 into breathable O2.
Granted, the email sent wasn't of a commercial nature, so probably couldn't be considered spam.
On a side note, he was also complaining about employment practices, and suggesting that people get a job elsewhere. I'd call that 'damage'.
And I'd call it "commercial."
IANAL, but there's a chasm between commercial speech and noncommercial speech you could drive several dump trucks through.
Sure, but this ruling wasn't based on that chasm.
Witness the national do-not-call list.
But congress approved the national do-not-call list. Congress never approved a national do-not-email list. Once they do, then these spam problems will be solved. Let's go FTC.
Yeah, I really forced you to install that mail server.
Maybe I need to start making legal threats, it just seems like so much bother.
Well you are apparently being bothered by not making legal threats, too. Supposedly it's really easy to sue these guys, but I've never actually done it. All the telemarketing calls I've received were from companies with which I've had a pre-existing business relationship. Columbia House did call three times, but then again I've had at least three accounts with them. So while they may have technically broken the law (if I dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's when I told them to stop calling me), I'm not even sure.
(FWIW, IANAL)
Obviously.
People are free to drive by your house and take a picture of it, or anything else out in public view.
Not if that thing out in public view is copyrighted.
That's right, the DMCA contains provisions protecting companies like google from copyright infringement. Read it some time.
Now imagine that you pay when you make a call, not when you receive it?
Why should the caller have to pay just because the sender is on some remote island? The receiver is the one benefiting from the mobility of the phone, therefore the receiver should pay for it. If you want free incoming calls, get a land-line.
The point of SMS is that its a good way to leave a message without having to frig around with voicemail. Here in oz we pay about 20c to send a message and nothing to receive it, so it's cheap enough
I'd rather leave a voice mail for free than pay 20c to send a message.
but no-one's going to sent 10,000 spam texts for a 0.1% return at 20c a go! Hence NO SPAM. That's my point.
No one's going to send 10,000 spam texts here either, because they know they'll get their asses sued into bankruptcy.
If any cellphone provider in Europe would be stupid enough to start billing from receiving calls and messages, people would vote with their feet so damn fast that company would be bankrupt in a nanosecond.
Whereas here in the United States, if a cellphone provider would be stupid enough to start billing from sending calls and messages, people would run away just as quickly.
I can also send messages from 'net and be billed for it in phone bill, if "receiver pays" really is only thing you can come up that will allow people to send messages with something other than a phone, bzzt, next try.
I've had a number of people send me text messages who didn't have cell phones.
I know that electronic payment systems are centuries behind in US, but anything that simple still shouldn't be impossible.
Impossible? No. But expensive. Much more expensive than just dropping charges when people bitch about getting spammed.
But listen. If all you care about is spammers, why not set up the charges this way. Don't charge for all messages, just charge for spam messages.
There is a point. For a short message an SMS has the advantage of not forcing that person to take it at the moment you call.
I don't know. That advantage generally isn't worth $0.10 to me.
Since it is impolite (if you don't agree, I hate you) to take calls in a theatre , on a tennis court, etc., or even if you are talking to someone, SMS is the way to go.
If you're in these places your phone is probably off, so voice mail is just as effective (and non-intrusive). I guess it depends on the person, though. Everyone's going to have different rules with regard to calling them on their cell phone. Personally I only receive calls on my cell phone, so I fully expect people to call me for stupid little things and if I don't want to be bothered with it I'll just not answer or turn the phone off.
And guess what, it costs a lot less than voice mail!
You pay for voice mail? You crazy Europeans...
Now that's especially strange. Telemarketing to a cell phone is highly illegal unless you meet certain specific criteria. Were these companies with which you've had an existing business relationship? I've gotten 5 in the three years I've had the phone, but 2 have been from credit card companies, and 3 from Columbia House. I could actually sue Columbia House if I felt like it. But it's not like I actually paid for the call since I was under my limit anyway. I'm probably not going to bother.
The new FTC (or is it FCC?) rules are that all telemarketers have to send real caller-ID information from now on. That should make cell phone telemarketers a lot less intrusive and expensive, at least.
No. I think people who would otherwise be spammers will say that.