Michigander Beats Spammer With "Junk Fax" Law 438
TastyWords writes "According to this link, it's possible to apply the 'junk fax law' to successfully sue a spammer in small claims court. For those who are stuck in states which either have worthless (or near-worthless) anti-spam legislation, this creative approach of the law presents a creative method of turning the table on those who choose to spam first and ask questions later. All of the details are available for enterprising anti-spammers!" Update: 02/25 00:30 GMT by T : OK, so it's Michigander, not Michiganian. Too long as a Texon, Marylandite and Tennesseenaut.
Michigander (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Michigander (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when that whole stupid PC thing started, 'michiganians', huh!
What I'd like to know is if something like Junk-Fax can be used to bust michiganoid Alan Ralsky. [freep.com] On a per-item basis, one should be able to seize his house, eh?
you're Michiganians (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, it's a stupid monkier and no one follows it, but it could be worse. The 2nd choice was "Michiganeers".
The person who spearheaded the legislation found being called a duck insulting.
Re:Michigander (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Michigander (Score:4, Funny)
But I don't speak korean... (Score:2)
(of course, spamassassing is very effective at filtering that).
Re:But I don't speak korean... (Score:3, Interesting)
All done, the spam gets filtered into the caughtspam mail folder no more spam (1 spam per month gets through, 10-25 per day get filtered). For some "spam" that I'm asking for (yes I opted in on some commercial mailing lists such as travelocity), I just add them as a 'whitelist_from' in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
Money ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Money ! (Score:3, Insightful)
$539.00 isn't so great if you have to buy airfare and take time off from work for your court date.
Re:Money ! (Score:2)
Re:Money ! (Score:5, Informative)
Example: Don't sue corporations in Delaware; Delaware sells itself as corporation-friendly. Their laws are set up to make incorporation easy and make all things nice for corporations. Just have a look-see at the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce site [cdcc.net] before you disagree. I set up two corporations in DE myself.
Re:Money ! (Score:5, Informative)
Experts [nolo.com] disagree [fraserlawfirm.com].
(From the first link)
"You sue an Illinois citizen in an Illinois state court for breach of contract. It doesn't matter where you live, or where the events leading up to the lawsuit took place because an Illinois state court has personal jurisdiction over all citizens of Illinois."
This makes sense. Otherwise it would be incredibly unfair to defendents, who would have to travel to the location of the plaintiff on the plaintiff's whim.
Re:Money ! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's kind of the point :P. IANAL, but I certainly know of several cases where people have had to travel to defend themselves in court. I know it's happened in several cases where people have sued telemarketers (under state no-call laws), and there's one guy with a fish store in New York who's made a habit of suing people who badmouth him, and one of the reasons he's so successfull is that they either have to travel to NY or hire a local attorney to defend it. Sadly, I'm far too lazy to provide links, and I can't remember the guys name to search for anyway.
I believe this may fall under the "minimum contacts" clause that's mentioned in your first link.
Re:Money ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Experts, schmeckperts. Law is decided by judges, not lawyers. And if you read the history of practically any Internet related lawsuit you will see that the plaintif can usually get a suit brought in the court of their choice.
Ralsky tried very hard to get the cyberpromotions suit taken away from Virginia's rocket docket to his own state where it takes three years to get a first hearing. And he failled.
This makes sense. Otherwise it would be incredibly unfair to defendents, who would have to travel to the location of the plaintiff on the plaintiff's whim.
In Internet cases the courts have generally considered that companies are doing business anywhere that they solicit it. The solicitation happens anywhere the defendant could reasonably expect that the message would be read.
law! (Score:3, Informative)
Then there is subject matter jurisdiction versus personal jurisdiction, and the constitutional limits on jurisdiction versus the prudential rules of venue. If you're going to small claims court you hardly have to worry about all that. The pivotal issue is fairness. Sears was "present" locally, both because they had a store and because they inflicted an injury on the plaintiff in his home jurisdiction (imagine they'd sent him a bomb -- no one would quibble that it was "unfair" to drag Sears to the plaintiff, and the prosecutor). The small claims court has subject matter jurisdiction under the federal junk fax law, meaning they were the right place to hear this sort of case. And so on.
The bomb example is a little unsubtle, but an illegal email is just a milder example of the same sort of civil wrong. It would be quite unfair to force the plaintiff to go to whatever rock the defendant was lurking under to litigate a $500 claim.
If you really want to bend you mind, sometimes a place is appropriate for the lawsuit to be heard, but the law of another jurisdiction is applied (choice of law). Then you may find yourself applying a mix of local procedural law and foreign substantive law.
Pool all the money together... (Score:3, Interesting)
Junk Faxes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Junk Faxes (Score:2)
one question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:one question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:one question (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contract? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, since it probably cost them $100 to have their in-house law department tell them it would cost them a couple thousand dollars to defend themselves in small claims court, management said "Dammit, isn't there something we can do?", and their lawyer said, "Well... we could try to get him to sign this waiver...."
Seriously I once lost a Sears card without realizing it, and the next month someone had gone to the local Sears and charged it up to the $3000 credit limit. I had no idea what had happened until the monthly statement arrived and said that I had spent $2999.69 during the last cycle.
6 months later they were still hassling me, had me sign my signature literally 100 times and finally I just told them that I was going to countersue them, because their staff had allowed someone to make fraudulent purchases.
Basically their clerks told them what my credit limit was, and judging from the signature it was a woman's handwriting so they allowed someone without ID and the opposite gender use my credit card, and engage in extremely suspicious activity: go on a spending spree that included the purchase of 4(!) VCRS, all from the same Sears location on the same day, in sequential purchases.
I basically told their fraud guy - yeah it was stupid of me to lose my credit card in a parking lot without realizing it, but how the fsck do you explain that your clerks never for a moment tried to verify that the person making these highly suspicious purchases was allowed to go on until they reached within 31 cents of my credit limit...
This happened 8 years ago, and still pisses me off. I haven't ever done business with Sears again, by the way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Alan Ralsky (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alan Ralsky (Score:3, Interesting)
In California... (Score:2)
---
What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!
Finally. (Score:3, Funny)
2) ???
3) Profit!
Printing spam... (Score:2, Funny)
So here's my plan:
1. Print spam
2. Rent building to hold printed spam
3. ???
4. Profit!
Awesome!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope this has any affect... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I hope this has any affect... (Score:2)
On the other hand, it should be clear that the law doesn't regard reasonableness very highly.
Re:I hope this has any affect... (Score:2)
I'm wondering if I should start forwarding all my "Buy Norton SystemWorks 2003" spam to abuse@symantec.com
Do you think it'll have any effect?
Re:I hope this has any affect... (Score:2)
You can still sue Sears. Contracting out doesnt remove them from being responsible. Also if they contract out to commit crimes you can sue under the Rico act. Under the Rico act its 3x the ammount, so 1500 per spam. (IANAL, but It sounds good to me.)
Re:He mentions this in the article... (Score:2)
Even a porn/viagra website has a indentifiable source. Hosting companies which refuse shut down spammers (Exodus and Verio, to name a few) should be held accountable for the content, just as say, you would arrest a bank employee who let in the actual robber through the back door when nobody was looking.
Eh what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh.. what? What states don't fall in that category?
Seriously, is there a state that's got the problem under control?
Good news, but it won't help... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sears is an easy target -- they probably sent semi-legitimate spam that included contact and/or removal information, as well as the Sears website. However, I doubt that $500 will steer Sears in the right direction regarding spam. For $500, it's easier for them to write a check than to pursue it in court. I'd guess they made several thousand dollars off the spam mail, and that the $500 was written off as a cost of doing business.
My point is, that between completely illegitimate spam that doesn't even have any real contact information, and companies that make a lot of money off of spam and who don't mind writing a $500 check every once in a while, this law won't be very effective.
I will continue to argue that spam is a technical problem and needs a technical solution to solve it. Ultimately, even if the big companies like Sears stop spamming, there will always be the spammers who send out 100 million penis enlargement spam mails with fake headers and fake return addresses that render the spam nearly impossible to trace. The illegitimate spam problem won't be solved by laws -- it will be solved by the intelligence of the Internet community. I'd rather see this solved by technical prowess than by laws that will only encourage spammers to fake their mail headers to avoid lawsuits.
Re:Good news, but it won't help... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes $500 is nothing, but if everyone starts to fight.
$500 a day, $500 5 times a day,
We are talking about serious amounts of cash, even to a company the size of Sears. Not to mention it probably cost them another $500 per appearance in attorney's time. I do agree though that the spammers that are untraceable will be the hardest to stop. My $0.02
technical fantasy (Score:3, Interesting)
Moreover, the mere transmission of spam is causing harm. It clogs the arteries of the Internet. The ISP's despise it, and spend money fighting it -- my money. Finally, even though I have broadband it takes significant time for me to download those extra 20 messages. Thanks to some idiot out there who typed in my email as his, I've seen geometric growth in spam lately, from maybe 10% to 60% of incoming material.
It is often argued that if you make something illegal people will just break the law, but that proves too much --- the same argument would supposedly undermine every law. Making it illegal will scare off the legit or semilegit bulk emailers, and it will make the shadiest spammer tempting targets for the prosecutors who has much better investigatory abilities than we do. I've talked to one of these guys, an assistant attorney general in Washington state, and was impressed how much work it took them to pin down one spammer. The state spam law was the hook they used to snare him, then they could also be sure to put him out of business. Believe it or not, there are smart people working for government, and in that case they even hired some outside help, PI's to track the guy down (he was quite slippery).
I don't like the idea that the defense to burglars is better locks, and I'm willing to ask for the government's help on this one.
So does this not work with broadband? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So does this not work with broadband? (Score:2, Informative)
No, you just need to have the capacity to.
Re:So does this not work with broadband? (Score:3, Insightful)
I also have a printer, and run my own mail server.
All I have to do now is make a few accounts and post some drivel on Usenet without masking my e-mail address and watch the funds come rolling in.
I'd do it in a heartbeat, but it's the moving to Michigan part that gives me pause.
Before any of you Michigan residents hit that "Moderate-Troll" button, just take note that I currently reside in California, so y'all can get a good laugh on my expense too.
Re:So does this not work with broadband? (Score:3, Informative)
That is, California has their own implementation of the fax law, which requires an removal number and removal upon request. So junk faxers can do so until you notify them, then they sell your fax number to the next guy.
Re:So does this not work with broadband? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like this would be a nice source of spare income if it could be done reliably, but do I have to use a modem?
I have a cable modem. Does that count? It's pretty regular; I've never seen it constipated at all.
More seriously, how tortured of a legal theory do you need to construct to cover broadband users? What is a "regular telephone line"? Does my cable modem count if my phone service is also provided by the cable co? If I'm using VOIP?
This news is mildly encouraging, but because it hinges on such a specific "technicality" (I love using that phrase in a legal context), I don't see how much it helps a lot of us.
Oh, yeah, IANAL, so consider my legal interpretation with great scepticism.
Small CLaims (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's why:
1. We have the time. A reward of $500 a day isn't too bad, tax free, I assume. Getting the headers, and finding a local spammer is the most difficult part of our task.
2. It pays. Illegal acts are being committed, even without the fax laws, there are truth-in-advertising laws, smut laws, etc.
3. Spammers are in your state. The sheer volume of mail sent means you're likely to eventually getting spam that originates from your state. This is important as most small claims courts will require both parties reside n the same area.
I'm employed, not really worth my time, but there's a business model and a "Support-your-American-Economy" cheeriness about this. Now go take on the day!
Re:Small CLaims (Score:3, Funny)
It is valid. (Score:5, Informative)
More information is at http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-art111.htm
Re:It is valid. (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL.
How about a computer, a dialup modem, fetchmail or other POP client, and a cron job that regularly fetches mail and pipes the newly-fetched mail to lpr?
That also sounds like it would qualify as equipment (computer, modem, printer) which has the capacity transcribe text or images from an electronic signal (noise to/from the modem) received over a regular telephone line (which is why I specified dialup) onto paper (which is why I specified lpr and a printer).
For a better case, burn a Linux distro onto a CDROM, and turn an old PC/modem/printer as an embedded system. "Well, some of us like to print our email. I don't like to check my email. When I come home from a hard day at the office, all my email is printed out in the output tray of the printer, where I can easily read it."
That sounds nuts to us, but I can think of several non-technical people who actually do treat their email that way -- "Email? That's like interoffice memos! Yeah, my secretary prints it all out, sorts 'em, and puts 'em in the inbox on my desk. By 10:00 am, I'm done dictating answers to my secretary, and I give her the tape so she can type up my replies on her computer thingy and send them out!"
Heck, if you end up taking this to court, your judge may in fact be one of those people. But then again, IANAL :)
Nice! (Score:2, Funny)
Essentially, I argued that under the title code, my computer is also a fax machine and that email is really no different from fax. My computer has a fax modem, fax software, a scanner and a printer, I received this email using a dial up phone line connection and printed the message.
That's really creative! (Especially from a non-lawyer).
It's not even particularly deceitful -- the reason fax spamming is illegal is because you use the resources of the recipient fax machine and associated items (fax paper, ink).
E-mail does, in fact, use the resources of the recipient computer, not least of which is the downward ISP connection, for which recipient pays a monthly fee, and which has limits imposed.
Still, it's pretty creative to say: "I printed it out. Now it's a fax. Pay!"
So, if you think the decision will be upheld on appeal, you might as well start cashing in in advance: Change your spam redirect from
For more information, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the e-mail address in my profile, along with a check made out to my username in the amount of $3.99. This includes shipping.
It's an informational brochure with no obligation. This guy is making it big. After a careful study of his case (IANAL), I've concluded that so can you.
You'll never have to work again.
Note: If you print this message you agree to opting in to my Slashdot Troll Service and may not sue me for junk faxing you. (If you don't print it it's not a fax).
--
I took some notes on our conversation, and then he sent me a fax. Do you want to see them?
Just the fax, ma'am.
Fax modem? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't like spam either, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't like spam either, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
For $500, Sears probably figured that it was cheaper to pay than to litigate. It would cost that much to send a decent lawywer to the hearing. If you actually want the lawyer to go to the hearing prepared, the bill would be considerably larger.
Re:I don't like spam either, but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't like spam either, but... (Score:2)
Read the site. Sears has declined their right to appeal, and has already sent him a cheque.
They sent an email message to an SMTP server, which stored it in Mark's mailbox.
That's certainly one way to look at it, however another interpretation is this: they didn't send it to an SMTP server - they sent it through an SMTP server, which stored it until it reached it's final destination (Mark's computer.)
Using his fax modem to dial his ISP and retrieve the message was Mark's choice. Printing it out was Mark's choice.
It is entirely possible to run your own SMTP server on a dialup line, and have it route all mail to
And while that would also be a choice, it's only semantically different from this case, and (even with your interpretation) would still legally fullfill all of the requirements of the statute.
Re:I don't like spam either, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't like spam either, but... (Score:3, Informative)
In most states, small-claims decisions can not be appealed. Period.
Two entirely meaningless observations. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Two entirely meaningless observations. (Score:3, Informative)
If you do, first you need to get what information
you can out of Spamhaus.org to identify those
spams that are coming to you from Ralsky. Then
you type up the papers and go to small claims.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see citations (especially case law) that specifically address your claim that 47 USC 227(a)(2)(B) is applicable in this case. In particular, such legal advice as I've seen states that this is *NOT* applicable to E-mail in general, and for this statute to be applicable, there would need to be a finding of fact that E-mail is legally a FAX. If E-mail *was* ruled to be legally fax, then you would have to comply with all the legal requirements that would entail.
In particular, I suggest that you also read 47 USC 227(d)(1)(B),
which states:
(d) Technical and procedural standards
(1) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -
(A)
(B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send any
message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person
clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each
transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the
transmission, the date and time it is sent and an
identification of the business, other entity, or individual
sending the message and the telephone number of the sending
machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it....
(Hint - was *your* e-mail stamped with the originating phone number at the top of each page?
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:2)
-
They are sending an unsolicited adverizement to a
fax machine.
-
They also are sending one without their phone
number.
And of course, as long as it doesn't have a printer connected, the *sending* machine may not be a FAX machine. But its still illegal to send the adverisement to a FAX machine, regardles what you use to send it, right?Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Junk Fax are a subset of all fax.
2) To make spam e-mail legally a junk fax, you first have to rule that all e-mail are fax.
3) Having done that, *all* e-mail is then bound by *ALL* the laws regarding FAX - including a *phone humber* at the top of *each page*. You don't get to pick-and-choose.
This is pretty well understood in other legal fields - if you try to get around (for example) IRS regs by declaring yourself a non-profit, you get stuck with all the regs for non-profits....
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Again, *BE CAREFUL* here - for instance, there's laws against unattended phones re-dialing more than a certain number of times if there's no answer.
If IP addresses were legally phone numbers, your mail system would probably be breaking the law every time it re-tried delivery of mail to a host that's down.
It's this sort of "unintended consequence" that makes writing laws so difficult.
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this seems like a good possible solution to the spam issues. If you were required to place in the header of an email some working contact info (like a real return email address that went to you) then perhaps that would help to deture spammers... I mean all the legitamate emails I receive have their return addresses on them.
Getting them not to have a box that automatically deletes everything is more difficult. Of course, what's stopping the junk-fax places from getting a phone number and simply not answering it.
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:2)
Sure was. The phone number was the null string, since there was no phone involved in sending. Moreover, since email is not the sort of fax that is divided into pages, it has zero pages. Therefore since the originating phone number must be printed on the top of each page, it need be printed only zero times. That was done precisely as the law requires.
The legal definition of a fax machine is not dependent upon what you, or the marketing division of the Xerox Corporation, call a fax machine. The relevant legal definition of "electronic facsimile machine" is spelled out in plain English in the statute law. A claim that this definition does not model what you think of as a fax machine does not enter into the issue. The words "electronic facsimile machine" are simply a string variable, standing in for the full definition given elsewhere in the statute. The statute could use the word "zruty" in place of "electronic facsimile machine" -- since it gives a clear definition of what is meant by the term, there is precious little weasel space.
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:3, Informative)
If a fax machine is receiving something, the something being received is a fax.
If you say that your comupter receiving e-mail is receiving a fax, then e-mail is a fax. Trying to claim otherwise blows your argument - if it's not a fax, then it isn't receivable as a fax transmission, and whether your computer is a fax machine is irrelevant (notice that making a *voice* call to a fax machine to sell things is totally legal, if useless....)
The worst part is that in order to make it stick at all, you have to take a *very* lenient interpretation of "recieving a fax".
For example - the spammer can *easily* wiggle out if he sends to your mail server rather than directly to your home computer - because the mail server doesn't "transcribe onto paper" as a normal integral part of receiving e-mail.
And the legal argument is dead meat otherwise - focusing on the part where your computer with the printer downloads the mail is a non-starter, as that's not an "unsolicited" transmission. You called the ISP and asked to download the mail...
And by the time you stretch the definitions enough to make it stick, the camel has gotten a lot more than just his nose into the tent.
Re:Be careful what you wish for, you may get it... (Score:2)
All well and good BUT (Score:2, Insightful)
Other countries may be so corrupt that their affairs are not in order. They can not deal with some problems effectively, which means that we may feel the pain for some time. Pricey faxes are only one of them.
Contradictory interests (Score:3, Insightful)
So. This guy successfully sued his local Sears branch for sending him a piece of Spam mail, for a total award of $539. The theory is that (being that Sears is a place you can sue), them sending it to his computer, means that the Sears store, wherever it is, is culpable for doing 'damage', 'irritation', or whatever, to his computer. Great, good for him.
How do we apply this logic to things like copyright infringement over county, state, national, international borders?
This is bullshit.
The same people who are cheering this ruling, convinced it will slow down or stop spam, because those damned spammers will be liable for the shit they send will be the very same people screeching in horror because the **AAs are 'breaking into your computer' by browsing what's already there to find illegally traded files.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can't have it both ways. Either computers exist on the internet, so they exist in all countries at once and are obligated to follow any law in any place someone decides to sue them with, or they're not. But I for one am sick and tired of reading what feels like opportunistic banner-waving: if it serves my interests, then that's what I want.
Look at the bigger picture. Please.
Michiganian? (Score:3, Funny)
Vote Nixon in 3000!
(it's a Futurama joke)
In first read (Score:3, Funny)
"meshugener(1) beats spammer!"
Ahhh.... violence that everyone agrees to....
(1) madman in yidish
Brothers, too early to celebrate. (Score:5, Insightful)
While this small victory is somewhat nice, it is quite too early to celebrate. It's a simple algorithm: take the number of emails produced by a spam-king, multiply by the number of possible suckers (gross profit), subtract the $500 per infraction of those willing to take the time and effort (net profit), and the result is well a very, very large pot minus a few pennies.
I would suggest taking a drug that fixes the infection rather than the symptoms. But I could be wrong.
Peace out
Don't get my hopes up (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Small claims court judges are undpredicatble. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly the TCPA is fairly toothless. Yes, you can sue for $500 and you might win. I have done so myself, and collected. But after spending several hours of work, and the average amount of time spent per successful collection is normally high enough that it's not worth your trouble.
Some small claims judges think you can't sue somebody out of state, some thing you can. Even on spam laws where there isn't the TCPA question.
There is a valid question of whether you should be able to sue somebody out of state in small claims court for $500. Think about it -- it costs $500 at least to come and defend yourself in an out of state case, so how can you win, even if you are totally innocent?
How would you feel if you -- not a junk faxer at all -- got a summons to appear in court on the other side of the country to face a $500 payment for junk faxing? You could go and defend yourself, but it would cost you way more than $500 in costs, don't even talk about your time. You can't send a lawyer, if somehow that would save money.
So it's tough to figure out how to allow this. And spammers and junk faxers are rarely local, though sometimes they are.
What if you took the risk that if you sued an out of state spammer, you would have to pay his expenses to come out if you lost, or take them out of your winnings if you won? I would not.
The Bad News (Score:2, Interesting)
If the party you are sueing is out of state, you have to take the matter to district court. The filing fee is usually only a little more, but if you don't win your case, you can expect to be held accountable for the spammers attorney fees.
finding those responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I don't find it a fair stretch to say that, possibly even in a legal sense, the spammer was respresenting the company. The same can extrapolated to cover owners of websites, etc. -- any person, company or service that is the subject of the spam.
I was doubtful of this until now -- it seems like Mark pulled it off!
So then, why we don't stop trying to stop spammers, and go after the source? By attacking those that fund the spammers the spammers will still go down, and the targets are easier to find.
Re:finding those responsible (Score:3, Interesting)
This is possible under the federal anti-fax spam. Hooters was fined over a million bucks for a fax spam run by a marketing company that went out of business before the complaint was files.
If the company actually being advertised is aware of the ads, they are responsible under the fax spam law.
Modify the device until the law applies (Score:5, Interesting)
We saw a similar thing recently, with Lexmark. Everybody can produce a plastic box that fits into Lexmark printers, and nothing can stop them from doing so. Except Lexmark & the DMCA - Lexmark found that they have to mix the plastic box (which is not protected by law) with an intellectual property item (which is protected by copyright) and an access restriction (which is protected by DMCA). Glue all 3 things together, and voila. You've got a plastic box which can not be legally copied.
So, when the law works AGAINST us consumers so often, why shouldn't it work FOR us once or twice?
Texon? (Score:3, Funny)
I think you mean a Texan. A Texon would be, like, the quantum unit of Texases.
To wit.... (Score:3, Informative)
Many states will not honor small claims suits if it can be determined that the venue is improper. In California, you can go after somebody if you have a REALLY good reason outside of state lines.
It's why that pet supplies guy can't legally sue somebody outside of his area. You file an improper venue plea and they effectively dismiss the case with prejudice.
Why is this guy printing out spam? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me the junk FAX doesn't apply unless you automatically print out all your e-mail. Otherwise, you're not using paper and ink for an unsolicited ad. Voluntarily printing out an e-mail just to take the spammer to court sounds like it oversteps the bounds of the law since at this point you chose to use the printer, not the spammer. I'm surprised any judge would convict. It probably will be overturned if it becoomes a big problem for spammers. People have been trying unsuccessfully to use the junk FAX laws to prosecute spammers for years now.
Law doesn't work for me (Score:3, Interesting)
Use Fax-to-Email services to invoke protection (Score:5, Interesting)
The trick is to redirect messages that seem to be spam; you'll get the occasional false positive, which is totally fine; at the end of the day, you shred the positives and pick a spam to write up a small claim about.
Hell, you could profit off of this, with the quantity of spam that's out there. Make a living off of receiving spam, perhaps.
If it was accepted as a valid use of the law, that'd destroy the spammers pretty quickly, with the effort of Slashdot behind those fax machines.
Imagine the force of Slashdot behind an initiative to print out and submit a small claim for at least one spam a day, per user. Thousands of claims would be filed in a single day against the same small set of companies. Some spam companies pull you off their list if you bring legal action against them, so a few hundred Slashdot users stop getting spammed by someone.
Repeat this daily for a month; you can also file multiple suits per day, if you have time. The sky's the limit (and your 100% recycled printer paper). Make some friends at the court; people will consider you a superhero if you help shut down spamming as a profitable enterprise.
I hope this case is validated; if so, there's ways to make people listen. Perhaps file a thousand small claims in a thousand courts on a single day, providing attached to the claim a list of all thousand courts. Send a press release to the major papers (and the local papers), tv & radio at 12pm after the filings, and see what happens.
The way to end spam is to make it unprofitable.
Re:Got go low tech (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the argument was that his computer is a "telephone facsimile machine" since it can "... transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper" as required by the statute. Further, the statute prohibits "[using] any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". The statute does not state that the advertisement must be sent over a telephone line, only that it must be sent to a "telephone facsimile machine".
Ie, the sender used a "computer" to send an "unsolicited advertisement" to his "telephone facsimile machine," which is prohibited section (b)(1)(C) of the statute [keytlaw.com].
On that note, how many of us use a fax modem any more
I doesnt matter, if your computer has one, then it is a "telephone facsimile machine" as defined by the statute.
Re:Sneaky (Score:2)
Are you claiming that you're part of the computer?
How is this on topic? (Score:3, Informative)
This is a troll post. *sigh* (Score:2, Offtopic)
Here's the link to this particular post: Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code [dyndns.org]
If you're going to troll, may I suggest The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth [dyndns.org]? It's one of my personal favorites.
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we shouldn't rape rapists. We should shoot them. Twice. Once in the crotch, let them suffer the pain and loss of manhood for a few minutes, then shoot them in the head. None of this rehabilitation crap.
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:2)
Morals and law are two totally different concepts.
The problem with your argument is that you ignore the true purpose of punishment: discouragement. The purpose of the penal system is to essentially produce a Pavlovian response towards 'bad' behavior in the subject. Unfortunately, given the structure of most prisons, the 'justice' system does more to reinforce said behaviors than prevent them.
If one man kills another, he has already violated the covenant of society. No number of speeches by defenders or flowery declerations of sorrow by the accused can bring the dead man back to life. It may not be impossible for a sinner to repent, but fear of punishing one should not overcome the dangers of his actions encouraging others.
Will raping rapists discourage others from doing the same?
Therein lies the question.
-Brett
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:2)
great troll... (Score:2)
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:2)
Spammers use very slimy methods in the way they do thier business in order to avoid what would be appropriate justice - namely, having any e-mail sent by them filed immediately in the bit-bucket. Since there are currently no legally prescribed means of stopping the deluge, people become outraged, and well, you can figure out what's going on from there,
While it's not really an excuse for questionable behaviour, these "businessmen" are actually inviting it by continuing along as though people actually want thier wares. As long as they do that, normally reasonable people will want to see all spammers get thier just reward - in spades.
Besides, there's and old saying that fits here:
"Turn-about is fair play."
Soko
You're gravely misunderstanding the principle. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Hebrew law has not been viewed as proscriptive, but rather prohibitive. Instead of saying "retribution is justice", the Hebrew scriptures actually put limits on the government's ability to authorize retribution--you were forbidden from exacting vengeance past the wrong done to you. If someone put out my eye, I wasn't allowed to put their entire family to the sword.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" is, like much of the Old Testament, usually read with absolutely no clue about the context in which it was written. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, which is another legal code from roughly the same period in antiquity. The Code can be summed up as "if you transgress these laws in any way, you're going to get killed. Or if your transgression was really minor, just permanently maimed." That was a helluva system of laws, let me tell you. That's all it was: a system of laws. There was no concept of justice at that time, just pure, unadulterated law, and if you broke it, you died.
Then along come the Jews and their principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life"... and this system of laws was hailed as moral, merciful, and just. Why? Because it established limits on what the government could mete out for punishment.
So the next time you feel like condemning Hebrew law ("an eye for an eye") as a "morally bankrupt code", please consider the other options available at the time. And also consider that you're completely misunderstanding what the entire point of the Hebrew "an eye for an eye" instruction was and is.
It was, believe it or not, perhaps the first time in human history that someone put limits on the power of government and established that there were moral limits to governmental power. As such, it deserves our respect.
Re:You're gravely misunderstanding the principle. (Score:3, Informative)
Um... actually the idea of 'an eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth' was pretty much taken straight out of the Code of Hammurabi.
Check out paragraphs 196 [wsu.edu] and 200 [wsu.edu], specifically.
The Code of Hammurabi is the oldest known written legal code, older than the Hebrew law which you are attempting to contrast it with, and is considered to be the inspiration for most legal codes which followed it.
The Jews didn't invent the principle, they inherited it from the Babylonians.
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. Lex Talionis was the principle that you take NO MORE than an eye for an eye - promulgated as an "improvement" in an era where the response to losing an eye (or a purse) might be to do in the alleged perpetrator and confiscate all his worldly goods.
It's morally bankrupt, all right. But only to the extent that if the theif only loses what he stole, and has a nonzero chance of getting away with it, thevery remains a profitmaking enterprise despite full enforcement of the law. So it becomes an endorsement of theft as a lifestyle. This is why there are "puntitive damages" - extra penalties to punish the perpetrator (thus making continued misbehavior a losing proposition even in with imperfect law enforcement).
None of which applies here. Applying "Lex Talionis" to the spammer would mean spamming him, rather than seeking compensatory and puntitive damages.
Re:Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code (Score:2)
Whether or not there is an "absolute moral code" or not is beside the point. What is not beside the point is whether various relevant moral codes can be evaluated against some meaningful standard (not necessarily an absolute standard, just a standard that the various people involved can agree is "meaningful"). If you believe there's a rational justification to objecting to my "punch you because I feel like it" morality, then you implicitly agree that it's possible that there's a rational justification for the other poster's criticism of your lex talionis morality.
When you write "you spout that off as if there is an absolute moral code than should be followed...", you're being intellectually lazy in two distinct ways. The first is you're inferring the writer is an absolutist and then knocking down that inferred straw man. The second is that you probably don't even realize that you were knocking down a straw man because it appears that you think that advocating a moral position necessarily implies absolutism. It doesn't.
Re:Surprising... (Score:2, Insightful)
It does when:
- you get your email via GPRS and you are paying for every single byte transferred.
- when you are dialing up to the Internet via a modem and you pay phone charges (in Europe there is no flat fee local calls).
Spam IS expensive wether you want to believe it or not, and I'm not getting into the whole "wasting time sorting it out" and "time is money".
Re:This subject is standard, don't worry about it. (Score:2)
Good thing it's the end of the day and the coffee's no longer being drank
Re:Modems and broadband (Score:2, Informative)
Section 227.b.1
Prohibitions
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -- to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;
Doesn't say anything about the fax having to come over a phone line, just that it has to go to a telephone facsimile machine.
Looks like cable modem users can sue. Luckily I have about 10k spams saved, I'm sure I can find some for local florida companies, then I'll go buy myself a faxmodem !