How is the non ISP members of the relay compensated by the spammer?
By lowered ISP fees.
Are you saying that voluntarally download spam because it comes down with the mail that I am interested in.
I'm saying that your ISP provides you with a package. Part of that package is regular email, part is spam. The spammers pay a higher fee than the non-spammers, so they are subsidizing the cost of the service.
Give me your home address, as by analogy I am welcome to walk into your house simply because you open the door for others.
Newpaper consumers are by their very nature "opt-in"; there is "added value" to a newpaper advertisment, that is the news.
The newspaper is analogous to the internet connection in this analogy. The non-spam is the added value.
And your argument about reciprocal agreements fails completely when you consider that not all entities on the internet are ISPs or are connected via ISPs.
There are ISPs, and there are end-users. The end-users connect to the ISPs with reciprical agreements - service contracts. Because the end-user is generally getting the better end of the arrangement, the fees generally go from the end-user to the ISP. Any way you slice it, both parties to the arrangement are presumably benefitting (monetarily or otherwise), otherwise the arragement wouldn't be made.
And then overuse the shared subnets which exist between them and the recipient. Subnets which are owned by others and for which the owner is not compensated proportionally. The "commons" here refers to the internet as a whole, not the ISP's pipe into it.
First of all, the internet is not a "commons". A "commons" belongs to the public, and anyone in the public is free to use it as they see fit. In order to use the internet, you need to pay someone money.
You could argue that your email mailbox is a commons, because anyone is free to put email into your mailbox. But your mailbox is only a commons because you choose to make it so. You can't have it both ways. If you want your mailbox to be a commons, then you will suffer the tragedy of the commons. If you don't want your mailbox to be a commons, then you need to restrict access to it. That's pretty simple, really, just have a simple sign-up form for access to your email mailbox. Have them "sign" an electronic contract not to spam you, and give them a unique address to contact you at. Have fun.
And under the 1996 Act, others can "opt in" to the contract we signed with Qwest.
Ah... That's what "opt in" means. Very cool. Is anyone using Qwest eligible or only in Colorado?
I guess most of the costs would have to be repeated at each CO anyway, so I guess the only possibilty of a national network of coops would be a bunch of independent ones who eventally gather the critical mass to start peering with each other. In other words, ain't gonna happen.:)
I didn't catch the full thread, and I never said anything about that either way. I was responding strictly to "a common carrier, right?".
OK:). Sorry about that. I'm a little hazy about that part of the law anyway. But wouldn't "common carrier" status imply that the ISP cannot restrict the information carried over the network? That means they can really have only one rule: nothing illegal. They can't say "no spam," or "no porn," or anything like that.
I'm not sure that makes sense in a non-monopoly environment, especially one like the internet where all bits are nowhere near equal.
These costs are not paid by the spammer, they are spread out across everyone who uses the internet as increased overhead and prices.
I see no reason to believe that. If your network carries a lot of spam, it's simply not going to be worth as much to peer with.
Chuckle, I'd consider a peering agreement with a spamming ISP a rather dubious "benefit".
Then why do ISPs do it? I'm not going to question the wisdom of an ISP which voluntarily peers with a spammer. If they choose to enter into such an agreement, that's their liability, and no one else's.
Most ISP's actively try to block sources of spam from their networks.
Unless those sources are bringing in income.
Secondly there is no peering agreement with the spamming ISP, or are you going to claim AcmeISP has an agreement with every ISP in the world?
AcmeISP is buying service from SpamFriendlyISP, which is in turn buying service from SpamFriendlyFriendlySuperISP, which is in turn selling service to YourParentISP, which is selling service to YourISP.
LOL. Resorting to calling me stupid?
I didn't mean it personally.
Why would I want to use an ISP that would only make the problem worse?
I fail to see how using a spam-friendly ISP such as Verio would make your problem worse.
An ISP by definition must have a connection to the internet somewhere.
Right, and they are paying for that connection.
Your argument boils down to "the value of the internet" is higher than the cost of the spam.
Not exactly. I'm saying that the cost of the spam is a factor of the peering agreement between the spammers ISP and the "parent" ISP. If you allow a spammer to connect to your ISP, you have to factor in not only the increased bandwidth for yourself, but also the degraded reputation you will have for your parent ISP, and in turn the peer to that ISP, etc., all the way to the spam recipient. No one is required to accept your spam-ridden bandwidth, regardless of whether or not you are the one actually sending the spam.
That's like saying oxygen has more benefit than the the cost of breathing pollution, so quit complaining about the cyanide I'm dumping into the air and into your lungs.
No, it's not, because oxygen is a common good for all, it is not a privately owned and contracted for resource. Another major difference is that pollution kills people, whereas spam merely annoys them. Again, I think a better analogy is someone who has a Mailboxes Etc. account and receives junk mail. The junk mail sender is not paying Mailboxes Etc. directly, but they are subsidising the entire mail system by paying a partner of Mailboxes Etc., the USPS.
The biggest problem is really the time consumed.
I agree that the detriment assigned to the time consumed vastly overshadows any detriment in terms of bandwidth used. I just don't think it's appropriate to blame the time consumed on reading spam any more than it is to blame the time consumed on reading stupid slashdot posts, or watching television commercials, or reading newspaper ads. ISPs clearly profit off spammers. If they wouldn't they would have tougher policies against spam.
And don't try to compare it to other ads. When I see a TV commercial it is because I initiate contact by choosing to view that TV channel, and the ad pays for the show I want to watch.
When you download a spam it is because you initiate contact by choosing to download that spam, and the ad pays for the internet connection you are using to download the spam. Every single individual step in the spam's delivery is a voluntarily entered into contractual arrangement. The fundamental assumption of capitalism is that people will only enter into contractual arrangements which benefit them. If at each step there is a mutual benefit, then how can there be an end-to-end detriment?
Spam does not pay for any part of my internet connection, it makes it more expensive.
That's where you and I disagree. If spam made your connection more expensive, then ISPs wouldn't allow spammers (or spam-friendly ISPs) on their networks. Further, there would be ISPs out there which do not offer email at all, which would therefore not incur this spam-carrying surcharge.
They get the benefit of a peering agreement with the spamming ISP. Besides, if you're not smart enough to hook up with an ISP which profits off spam, that's your problem.
No matter how you do the math, even if I pay for flat rate monthly service, my ISP passes these costs on to me.
I disagree. If the benefits of a peering arrangement exceeds the cost of the spam being sent from that arrangement, the ISP will not enter into the agreement.
No, it's a bit like saying newspapers factor all their costs into their advertizing rates. The spammer pays, and the ISP pays, and those are the two who are receiving the benefits.
A good set of essays on the costs of spam, and possible non-law-based solutions, can be found here [templetons.com].
Yeah, cause if it's on the internet, it must be true. Again, compare the costs that ISPs pay to carry spam to the costs newspaper delivery trucks make to deliver newspapers. It's generally a voluntarily entered into situation, and where it is not voluntarily entered into the ISP can sue for breach of contract.
Someone sending a letter to your mailboxes etc. box is also costing you money, but it's money you're willing to pay for the service and it's less likely to get abused because it also costs the sender of the mail money.
The cost of your email account is costing you money, but it's money you're willing to pay for the service and it costs the send of the email money.
Remove the cost barrier on sending junk mail and I'll bet you see a whole lot more of it, possibly to the point where you'd complain about it.
So then we should start charging more for sending email? Ultimately the free market has decided that the cost of email is insignificant compared to the cost of snail mail.
Your point being what? If I don't want spam I should just not get email?
Yes. Alternatively you could subscribe to an email service which has spam filters. But if that doesn't filter enough spam for you, if the cost of having an email account exceeds the benefit you derive from it, get rid of your email account.
Because my connection to the internet is beneficial overall then I can't complain about or try to change the parts I don't like?
You can complain, but don't waste my money using bandwidth to read your complaints. You can try to change the parts you don't like, but I don't see how you're doing that right now. Start your own email system if you don't like the one we have.
Love it or leave it? What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that there's no difference between spam and direct mail except that spam is more efficient in terms of number of messages that can be sent for a given cost.
Sure they do. Newspapers pay for the delivery and therefor pay for the gas. The newspapers factor all their costs into their advertizing rates. Spammers do NOT in any way pay for my connection delivering the spam to my computer.
Sure they do. The ISPs factor all their costs when allowing spammers to connnect to their networks.
It's like saying that in order to get paper mail from Aunt Amy I have to pay 50% postage due on all the junk mail I get.
No it's not. There is no postage due on email. There are incidental costs to the ISP, just like there are incidental costs to Mailboxes Etc. when you send junk mail to someone who has a mailbox there.
I pay for my ISP service, my ISP pays for it's [sic] bandwidth and the equipment to carry it.
So? I pay for my mailboxes etc. mailbox. Mailboxes etc pays for the handling and storage fees for my mail. That doesn't mean that someone sending me a letter is stealing from me.
And when it stops being beneficial to me, I will stop using them. Who said anything about being forced to use them?
Both you and your ISP are making voluntary decisions to connect to the internet, so it must be in your own best interests to do so.
Spammers already overgraze the email commons, but somehow these guys think that because political spam is a different beast, it will all work out.
The internet is not a commons. It is privately owned by the ISPs.
The paper/station charges what they need to run their business. With spam the spammers creates costs that they don't have to pay.
Spammers do pay, they pay their ISP. You don't complain about the fact that the newspaper advertisers don't pay for the extra gas that they cause the truck drivers who deliver the newspapers to pay, do you?
So, if a political candidate calls you collect to ask you to vote for him, it's okay?
Sure, why not? You choose whether or not to accept the charges.
What if you couldn't refuse the charges?
Then you should get a new phone company.
For the few who haven't heard this before: Even if you pay monthly for unlimited access, it still cost you money. Your ISP has to pay for the extra bandwidth and equipment to handle the traffic. One guess who gets to pay for that in terms of higher access fees.
The spammers.
Look, my ISP is voluntarily entering into every peering agreement it makes. If that peering agreement is costing them more in bandwidth then it is bringing them in revenues, then they should drop the agreement. The solution to paying higher access fees is to join ISPs which profit off spammers.
Spam isn't. It gets paid for by the recepient, like postage-due junk mail.
Are you saying that spammers don't pay their ISPs? Are you saying that you're being forced to buy internet access which charges for every byte that you download? That's a bullshit argument. Each step of the way there is a voluntarily entered into contract.
And you don't even get the choice of refusing it.
You voluntarily download it or accept the incomming connection. No one forces you to download it or accept that connection.
If spammers were willing to pay all the costs of sending spam (not just the cost to click the 'Send' button), I think there'd be a lot less concern.
Spammers do pay all the costs of sending spam. At least those who do not violate their contractual agreements with their ISPs, in which case it's up to their ISP to sue them.
Depends how you define spam. If you define it as unsolicited commercial email, then you are restricting the content of unsolicited email to noncommercial speech. Now if you define spam as unsolicited automated email, then you're restricting the mode of speaking, and not the content of speech.
I can stand in my own house and scream anything I damn well choose, but when I start to stand in your house, it's regulatable.
In this case they're standing in your ISPs house, and they're doing so with the implicit permission of your ISP (a common carrier, right?).
Look at tattooing: I can tattoo the DeCSS algorithm onto my own chest, or the chest of another consenting person, but I cannot tattoo it onto the chest of a non-consenting person.
The question is whether or not there is consent given. I'd say there is, because the spammers ISP has entered into a peering agreement with the spam recipient's ISP. Any restrictions on the usage of that peering agreement should be put in the contractual agreement and treated as a breach of contract.
Trying to tattoo something onto a non-consenting person is assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of the First Amendment.
In mosts states and circumstances I'd guess it would fall under plain old simple assault.
I've heard your argument before, but it doesn't hold water and I think any court in the land would agree with me.
If I don't have usage-sensitive charges (and, specifically, a markup over my costs on those charges), then I don't derive a direct financial benefit from the infringement. And in any case, the financial benefit I would derive if I did have usage-sensitive charges, has nothing to do with the particular content being trafficked.
You'll probably win the vicarious copyright infringement case, with that argument. But direct financial benefit isn't necessary for contributory copyright infringement. Maybe you'll win that, too, so two years later after you've spent your last penny on lawyers' fees you'll finally be able to get back to providing insane amounts of bandwidth to your criminal clients.
Sounds damn close to contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringment to me.
Contributory infringement is similar to "aiding and abetting" liability: one who knowingly contributes to another's infringement can be held accountable. In order to prove a contributory infringement claim, a copyright owner must establish the following elements: (1) some act of direct infringement (by end-users, for example); (2) that the defendant knew or should have known of the defendant of the direct infringement; and (3) that the defendant materially contributed to the direct infringement.
A person will be liable for vicarious infringement if he has the right and ability to supervise infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities. In order to prove a vicarious infringement claim, a copyright owner must establish the following elements: (1) some act of direct infringement (by end-users, for example); (2) that the defendant had the right or ability to control the direct infringer; and (3) that the defendant derived a direct financial benefit from the direct infringement.
What about the risk that he would need to sell his home to hire a lawyer, and spend so much time in court defending himself that he couldn't hold down a job?
That's not a risk which is created by the DMCA.
On what do you base your assessment of the risk? Is there any reason that I should consider it any more accurate than the one that I have just proposed?
No, there isn't. It's just my opinion. I base my assessment on my reading of the law as well as my understanding of judicial precedents. I'm not a lawyer though, so you should do your own research into the law and the legal precedents before accepting my opinion.
Only for the photons that are observed though, correct? I assume there's some redundancy going on since the receiver isn't going to be able to read every single photon individually.
Not to mention the man-in-the-middle attack, where the message is simply decrypted and then resent. Without a securely distributed key, you're always going to be vulnerable to that.
Anyway, it's probably not as simple as just putting in a beamsplitter, but the article wasn't clear enough to me to understand why. I guess I'll look up quantum encryption when I have some time.
Slashdot Mirror
when you have a type of spam which actually costs the recipient money.
How is the non ISP members of the relay compensated by the spammer?
By lowered ISP fees.
Are you saying that voluntarally download spam because it comes down with the mail that I am interested in.
I'm saying that your ISP provides you with a package. Part of that package is regular email, part is spam. The spammers pay a higher fee than the non-spammers, so they are subsidizing the cost of the service.
Give me your home address, as by analogy I am welcome to walk into your house simply because you open the door for others.
34 Putnam Ave Apt A7
Brewster, NY 10509
Newpaper consumers are by their very nature "opt-in"; there is "added value" to a newpaper advertisment, that is the news.
The newspaper is analogous to the internet connection in this analogy. The non-spam is the added value.
And your argument about reciprocal agreements fails completely when you consider that not all entities on the internet are ISPs or are connected via ISPs.
There are ISPs, and there are end-users. The end-users connect to the ISPs with reciprical agreements - service contracts. Because the end-user is generally getting the better end of the arrangement, the fees generally go from the end-user to the ISP. Any way you slice it, both parties to the arrangement are presumably benefitting (monetarily or otherwise), otherwise the arragement wouldn't be made.
And then overuse the shared subnets which exist between them and the recipient. Subnets which are owned by others and for which the owner is not compensated proportionally. The "commons" here refers to the internet as a whole, not the ISP's pipe into it.
First of all, the internet is not a "commons". A "commons" belongs to the public, and anyone in the public is free to use it as they see fit. In order to use the internet, you need to pay someone money.
You could argue that your email mailbox is a commons, because anyone is free to put email into your mailbox. But your mailbox is only a commons because you choose to make it so. You can't have it both ways. If you want your mailbox to be a commons, then you will suffer the tragedy of the commons. If you don't want your mailbox to be a commons, then you need to restrict access to it. That's pretty simple, really, just have a simple sign-up form for access to your email mailbox. Have them "sign" an electronic contract not to spam you, and give them a unique address to contact you at. Have fun.
And under the 1996 Act, others can "opt in" to the contract we signed with Qwest.
Ah... That's what "opt in" means. Very cool. Is anyone using Qwest eligible or only in Colorado?
I guess most of the costs would have to be repeated at each CO anyway, so I guess the only possibilty of a national network of coops would be a bunch of independent ones who eventally gather the critical mass to start peering with each other. In other words, ain't gonna happen. :)
I didn't catch the full thread, and I never said anything about that either way. I was responding strictly to "a common carrier, right?".
OK :). Sorry about that. I'm a little hazy about that part of the law anyway. But wouldn't "common carrier" status imply that the ISP cannot restrict the information carried over the network? That means they can really have only one rule: nothing illegal. They can't say "no spam," or "no porn," or anything like that.
I'm not sure that makes sense in a non-monopoly environment, especially one like the internet where all bits are nowhere near equal.
These costs are not paid by the spammer, they are spread out across everyone who uses the internet as increased overhead and prices.
I see no reason to believe that. If your network carries a lot of spam, it's simply not going to be worth as much to peer with.
Chuckle, I'd consider a peering agreement with a spamming ISP a rather dubious "benefit".
Then why do ISPs do it? I'm not going to question the wisdom of an ISP which voluntarily peers with a spammer. If they choose to enter into such an agreement, that's their liability, and no one else's.
Most ISP's actively try to block sources of spam from their networks.
Unless those sources are bringing in income.
Secondly there is no peering agreement with the spamming ISP, or are you going to claim AcmeISP has an agreement with every ISP in the world?
AcmeISP is buying service from SpamFriendlyISP, which is in turn buying service from SpamFriendlyFriendlySuperISP, which is in turn selling service to YourParentISP, which is selling service to YourISP.
LOL. Resorting to calling me stupid?
I didn't mean it personally.
Why would I want to use an ISP that would only make the problem worse?
I fail to see how using a spam-friendly ISP such as Verio would make your problem worse.
An ISP by definition must have a connection to the internet somewhere.
Right, and they are paying for that connection.
Your argument boils down to "the value of the internet" is higher than the cost of the spam.
Not exactly. I'm saying that the cost of the spam is a factor of the peering agreement between the spammers ISP and the "parent" ISP. If you allow a spammer to connect to your ISP, you have to factor in not only the increased bandwidth for yourself, but also the degraded reputation you will have for your parent ISP, and in turn the peer to that ISP, etc., all the way to the spam recipient. No one is required to accept your spam-ridden bandwidth, regardless of whether or not you are the one actually sending the spam.
That's like saying oxygen has more benefit than the the cost of breathing pollution, so quit complaining about the cyanide I'm dumping into the air and into your lungs.
No, it's not, because oxygen is a common good for all, it is not a privately owned and contracted for resource. Another major difference is that pollution kills people, whereas spam merely annoys them. Again, I think a better analogy is someone who has a Mailboxes Etc. account and receives junk mail. The junk mail sender is not paying Mailboxes Etc. directly, but they are subsidising the entire mail system by paying a partner of Mailboxes Etc., the USPS.
The biggest problem is really the time consumed.
I agree that the detriment assigned to the time consumed vastly overshadows any detriment in terms of bandwidth used. I just don't think it's appropriate to blame the time consumed on reading spam any more than it is to blame the time consumed on reading stupid slashdot posts, or watching television commercials, or reading newspaper ads. ISPs clearly profit off spammers. If they wouldn't they would have tougher policies against spam.
And don't try to compare it to other ads. When I see a TV commercial it is because I initiate contact by choosing to view that TV channel, and the ad pays for the show I want to watch.
When you download a spam it is because you initiate contact by choosing to download that spam, and the ad pays for the internet connection you are using to download the spam. Every single individual step in the spam's delivery is a voluntarily entered into contractual arrangement. The fundamental assumption of capitalism is that people will only enter into contractual arrangements which benefit them. If at each step there is a mutual benefit, then how can there be an end-to-end detriment?
Spam does not pay for any part of my internet connection, it makes it more expensive.
That's where you and I disagree. If spam made your connection more expensive, then ISPs wouldn't allow spammers (or spam-friendly ISPs) on their networks. Further, there would be ISPs out there which do not offer email at all, which would therefore not incur this spam-carrying surcharge.
As far as I've seen ISP's have been denied common carrier status in every case.
So why shouldn't they be able to determine for themselves what content they allow to go through their system?
And what about MY ISP?
They get the benefit of a peering agreement with the spamming ISP. Besides, if you're not smart enough to hook up with an ISP which profits off spam, that's your problem.
No matter how you do the math, even if I pay for flat rate monthly service, my ISP passes these costs on to me.
I disagree. If the benefits of a peering arrangement exceeds the cost of the spam being sent from that arrangement, the ISP will not enter into the agreement.
No, it's a bit like saying newspapers factor all their costs into their advertizing rates. The spammer pays, and the ISP pays, and those are the two who are receiving the benefits.
A good set of essays on the costs of spam, and possible non-law-based solutions, can be found here [templetons.com].
Yeah, cause if it's on the internet, it must be true. Again, compare the costs that ISPs pay to carry spam to the costs newspaper delivery trucks make to deliver newspapers. It's generally a voluntarily entered into situation, and where it is not voluntarily entered into the ISP can sue for breach of contract.
Do you realize you're an at-will employee and can be fired at any moment if we don't like you?
Someone sending a letter to your mailboxes etc. box is also costing you money, but it's money you're willing to pay for the service and it's less likely to get abused because it also costs the sender of the mail money.
The cost of your email account is costing you money, but it's money you're willing to pay for the service and it costs the send of the email money.
Remove the cost barrier on sending junk mail and I'll bet you see a whole lot more of it, possibly to the point where you'd complain about it.
So then we should start charging more for sending email? Ultimately the free market has decided that the cost of email is insignificant compared to the cost of snail mail.
Your point being what? If I don't want spam I should just not get email?
Yes. Alternatively you could subscribe to an email service which has spam filters. But if that doesn't filter enough spam for you, if the cost of having an email account exceeds the benefit you derive from it, get rid of your email account.
Because my connection to the internet is beneficial overall then I can't complain about or try to change the parts I don't like?
You can complain, but don't waste my money using bandwidth to read your complaints. You can try to change the parts you don't like, but I don't see how you're doing that right now. Start your own email system if you don't like the one we have.
Love it or leave it? What are you trying to say?
I'm trying to say that there's no difference between spam and direct mail except that spam is more efficient in terms of number of messages that can be sent for a given cost.
Sure they do. Newspapers pay for the delivery and therefor pay for the gas. The newspapers factor all their costs into their advertizing rates. Spammers do NOT in any way pay for my connection delivering the spam to my computer.
Sure they do. The ISPs factor all their costs when allowing spammers to connnect to their networks.
It's like saying that in order to get paper mail from Aunt Amy I have to pay 50% postage due on all the junk mail I get.
No it's not. There is no postage due on email. There are incidental costs to the ISP, just like there are incidental costs to Mailboxes Etc. when you send junk mail to someone who has a mailbox there.
I pay for my ISP service, my ISP pays for it's [sic] bandwidth and the equipment to carry it.
So? I pay for my mailboxes etc. mailbox. Mailboxes etc pays for the handling and storage fees for my mail. That doesn't mean that someone sending me a letter is stealing from me.
And when it stops being beneficial to me, I will stop using them. Who said anything about being forced to use them?
Both you and your ISP are making voluntary decisions to connect to the internet, so it must be in your own best interests to do so.
Spammers already overgraze the email commons, but somehow these guys think that because political spam is a different beast, it will all work out.
The internet is not a commons. It is privately owned by the ISPs.
The paper/station charges what they need to run their business. With spam the spammers creates costs that they don't have to pay.
Spammers do pay, they pay their ISP. You don't complain about the fact that the newspaper advertisers don't pay for the extra gas that they cause the truck drivers who deliver the newspapers to pay, do you?
And what if no other phone company offered the option of declining the charges?
Then you shouldn't get a phone, and you should sue the phone company for monopolistic practices.
You don't have that option in email.
WTF are you talking about? I don't pay anything for incoming emails, do you?
Oh, they do, do they? Where's my check?
I didn't say they pay you. Just like unsolicited snailmail advertisers don't pay you.
That's kind of the point. This agreement is beneficial to my ISP, its subscribers, the ISP's it makes the agreement with and its subscribers.
And to you. You voluntarily agree to use that ISP. No one is forcing you to.
But we should let spammers abuse that agreement and trash the whole system? Just because it can be abused does not mean it should be.
No, the ISPs have the right to sue those who violate their contracts. There's no need for the FBI to get involved.
So, if a political candidate calls you collect to ask you to vote for him, it's okay?
Sure, why not? You choose whether or not to accept the charges.
What if you couldn't refuse the charges?
Then you should get a new phone company.
For the few who haven't heard this before: Even if you pay monthly for unlimited access, it still cost you money. Your ISP has to pay for the extra bandwidth and equipment to handle the traffic. One guess who gets to pay for that in terms of higher access fees.
The spammers.
Look, my ISP is voluntarily entering into every peering agreement it makes. If that peering agreement is costing them more in bandwidth then it is bringing them in revenues, then they should drop the agreement. The solution to paying higher access fees is to join ISPs which profit off spammers.
Spam isn't. It gets paid for by the recepient, like postage-due junk mail.
Are you saying that spammers don't pay their ISPs? Are you saying that you're being forced to buy internet access which charges for every byte that you download? That's a bullshit argument. Each step of the way there is a voluntarily entered into contract.
And you don't even get the choice of refusing it.
You voluntarily download it or accept the incomming connection. No one forces you to download it or accept that connection.
If spammers were willing to pay all the costs of sending spam (not just the cost to click the 'Send' button), I think there'd be a lot less concern.
Spammers do pay all the costs of sending spam. At least those who do not violate their contractual agreements with their ISPs, in which case it's up to their ISP to sue them.
It isn't the speech, it's the mode of speaking
Depends how you define spam. If you define it as unsolicited commercial email, then you are restricting the content of unsolicited email to noncommercial speech. Now if you define spam as unsolicited automated email, then you're restricting the mode of speaking, and not the content of speech.
I can stand in my own house and scream anything I damn well choose, but when I start to stand in your house, it's regulatable.
In this case they're standing in your ISPs house, and they're doing so with the implicit permission of your ISP (a common carrier, right?).
Look at tattooing: I can tattoo the DeCSS algorithm onto my own chest, or the chest of another consenting person, but I cannot tattoo it onto the chest of a non-consenting person.
The question is whether or not there is consent given. I'd say there is, because the spammers ISP has entered into a peering agreement with the spam recipient's ISP. Any restrictions on the usage of that peering agreement should be put in the contractual agreement and treated as a breach of contract.
Trying to tattoo something onto a non-consenting person is assault with a deadly weapon, regardless of the First Amendment.
In mosts states and circumstances I'd guess it would fall under plain old simple assault.
I've heard your argument before, but it doesn't hold water and I think any court in the land would agree with me.
Agree with you with what, exactly?
If anything, ban unsolicited automated email, not unsolicited commercial email.
If I don't have usage-sensitive charges (and, specifically, a markup over my costs on those charges), then I don't derive a direct financial benefit from the infringement. And in any case, the financial benefit I would derive if I did have usage-sensitive charges, has nothing to do with the particular content being trafficked.
You'll probably win the vicarious copyright infringement case, with that argument. But direct financial benefit isn't necessary for contributory copyright infringement. Maybe you'll win that, too, so two years later after you've spent your last penny on lawyers' fees you'll finally be able to get back to providing insane amounts of bandwidth to your criminal clients.
Do you have any plans to go national with your ISP? Why or why not?
I'm curious what illegal things they have done?
Sounds damn close to contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringment to me.
What about the risk that he would need to sell his home to hire a lawyer, and spend so much time in court defending himself that he couldn't hold down a job?
That's not a risk which is created by the DMCA.
On what do you base your assessment of the risk? Is there any reason that I should consider it any more accurate than the one that I have just proposed?
No, there isn't. It's just my opinion. I base my assessment on my reading of the law as well as my understanding of judicial precedents. I'm not a lawyer though, so you should do your own research into the law and the legal precedents before accepting my opinion.
Only for the photons that are observed though, correct? I assume there's some redundancy going on since the receiver isn't going to be able to read every single photon individually.
Not to mention the man-in-the-middle attack, where the message is simply decrypted and then resent. Without a securely distributed key, you're always going to be vulnerable to that.
Anyway, it's probably not as simple as just putting in a beamsplitter, but the article wasn't clear enough to me to understand why. I guess I'll look up quantum encryption when I have some time.