Fax-Spammers fax.com Sued For 2.2 Trillion 353
linuxwrangler writes "Fed up with junk faxes which have been illegal since 1991, a Silicon Valley businessman has launched a lawsuit against junk faxer fax.com. Steve Kirsch seeks the damages provided in the law: $500/fax for the last four years. If certified as a class-action on behalf of the 3 million receipients of the faxes that fax.com claims to send each day the total damages would reach 2.2 billion even without invoking the "triple-damages" clause for "willful" violations. Federal regulators hit fax.com with a 5.4 million fine just two weeks ago after the company ignored numerous warnings from the FCC and was found to be in "flagrant violation" of the law. Fax.com maintains that their actions are protected by the constitution and court decisions in this case could lay the foundation for the future of junk email regulation"
Missouri doesn't say that Junk Faxes are illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Mo Junk Fax Response [pingalingadingdong.com]
I was a little disappointed to say the least. This fax was hitting me every morning at 3am.
"Firewalls" for fax machines? (Score:3, Interesting)
More Coverage (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/technology/tech-
Re:5.4 million? (Score:5, Interesting)
and its not just the paper: Its the toner, employee time to dispose and sift through all that crap, the busy fax-line preventing you from sending or recieving legitimate faxes.
Email spam is annoying and a bit time consumming, but on top of that fax-spam cosume ressources and reduce the availability of the fax machine for legitimate purposes.
At my old job we got dozens of faxes a day, most of them spam. We would often not recieve important documents faxed to us by clients because the machine was out of paper due to all the adds it spewed out.
The fine is not a compensation for those hurt, its a punitive measure meant to make it stop.
Re:Big business trumps first amendment issues (Score:4, Interesting)
That's incorrect. The first amendment only guarantees you the right to free speech. It does not guarantee that you will be heard. Nobody has any legal obligation to listen to me. I have no right to use their resources to try to make them listen to me. The problem with junk faxing is that the faxer is using the faxee's resources (paper, toner, line time - and don't say that it's a flat rate per month, often a needed fax won't go through because a junk fax is taking the line). That has both direct and indirect costs to the faxee, which can be significant.
You may notice that fax.com is also a business. Many fax recipients are individuals. If you want to look at it as a conspiracy, at least realize that it's at least partially in favor of individuals.
Re:Big business trumps first amendment issues (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not trying to change your opinion. Just try to remember that information has become a commodity. So that means anyone with the capability of distributing information (everyone) is a target for people who wish to base their business on such actions. Just keep it in mind. This is war. Corporations are becoming more militant in their push for legislation while individuals are using more civil disobediance.
Personally, I value the individual's right to free speech before any group's right to free speech.
Re:Do the math... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:grr (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck trying to track them down in many instances just by the call - usually the bastards will not have any identifying info, and will just leave an 800 number (to get a great deal on FREE satillite TV, just call our sales agent at 800-xxx-xxxx
However, every little bit of info helps - let the FTC know you're pissed, and they can make a good case of how the system is being abused the next time they report to Congress. Who knows, maybe some bright young senator/representative might take this up as their cause...
Now, someone answer me this - why doesn't the Attorney General make this shit a criminal offense? If they're willing to put some pimply faced teen-ager away for sharing his taped copy of ST: TNG, why are they letting people who are attacking insturments of business and medicine (read the article, fax-spammers were wardialing and attacking hospital fax machines), in flagrant violation of a Federal law against such? Dual standards of justice and mismanaged priorities...
Kudos to Steve Kirsch for putting this issue into the spotlight. All we got to do is wait for the judge to allow class action status - start saving the fax-spams people!
Rather odd trend in commercial speech regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Just four years ago in an advertising class I took, the professor stood upon the mount and proclaimed that advertising isn't "protected free speech." Take that as you will.
Ahh, crap, I'm getting all varklempt. Talk amongst yourselves! Here, I'll give you a topic. With fax.com's assertion, the trend continues towards paid messages being allowed to be progressively more intrusive. Discuss!
So THATS why I've been getting fax calls all night (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting trivia about this (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big business trumps first amendment issues (Score:3, Interesting)
We have a guy here, he was a law student for several years (can't remember if he graduated or not). He can usually be found somewhere near the downtown Lincoln area with various politically or legally charged slogans written all over his clothing.
He writes the slogans on himself because he will be arrested for bothering people if he says them out loud. He will not discuss the sayings at length with you in public even if you ask him because he could be arrested as a protester. (Were you aware that protests are illegal unless registered with the city ahead of time?) He cannot stand in one place or he will be "impeding the flow of traffic" or some such crap. (or he is a protester again, take your pick). He cannot come to the same place every day either, or so I've heard.
The first amendment? It has no meaning in my city. Think it sounds odd? No one even notices this stuff unless they dig around, do some reading, or talk to odd people like this guy. I would venture to guess that most comparable cities (and ALL larger cities) have similar "reasons" to arrest people who are exercising their freedom to peacably assemble, or even their freedom to talk in public. It's an ugly world at times, and the ACLU is NOT going to save some poor, borderline homeless political outsider like this guy.
The problem of automated reception (Score:3, Interesting)
Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government can't prevent you from communicating an idea except for under very specific circumstances where that idea is very likely to cause harm. It is NOT a guarantee that you can inundate any particular person with your communication. Most importantly, it is not an obligation on the part of the recipient to pay for your message (in paper, toner, tied up phone lines, time spent downloading, per message fees, etc.). Maybe we need a constitutional amendment that protects the individual's right to dispose of their resources how they see fit.
Junk snail mail is a different animal, because the cost of sending out the message is (1) non-trivial and (2) borne by the sender. Between printing and postage, they are spending several cents per message, which necessarily limits their willingness to send out mail to known unwilling folks. It also ensures that the practice will be limited to "legitimate" companies (or at the very least, ones with decent-sized budgets). The self-limiting mechanisms of traditional junk mail tend to keep it at a manageable level.
We do need to re-evaluate freedom of expression in light of automated message reception. It does change the scope and mechanism of free expression a great deal, as well as shifting the costs (monetary and non-monetary) onto the recipient. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.