Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Spam News

Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million 435

Posted by Zonk from the that's-a-lot-of-pork dept.
fronck writes "Self-declared anti-spammer Mark Mumma, a web hosting and email service provider, has apparently been sued for just under $4 million by cruise.com and their parent company Omega World Travel after they were ordered to stop sending him emails and comply with Oklahoma's CAN-SPAM act. Mumma intends to see the trial through court and meanwhile the spam continues unabated. More insight available at Ars Technica."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million More

Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 Million

Comments Filter:

  • Counter Suit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:56AM (#11964296)
    As the spammers have clearly identified themselves and their victim should have logs clearly showing their abuse he should counter sue them.

    They have kindly set the level for the quantum of damages.

    • You've missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:59AM (#11964319)
      They sue people to get them to give up. A lot of people don't have the time, money and/or will to fight someone in court, so they say "Sorry!" and go away.
      • Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

        IANAFL

        • This might be a case where that's possible. In order for that to happen (in the US), a judge needs to rule that a suit is frivolous, meaning that it's so obviously bogus that the Plaintiff should not have even considered filing it.

          Not a lawyer, blah blah blah blah ham sandwich.

        • Re:You've missed the point (Score:5, Informative)

          by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:20AM (#11965017) Journal
          I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you get your legal advice from the web, get your head checked.

          I'm going to make a few assumptions here:
          1) That the Defendand doe indeed have no significant contacts to the state in which the suit was filed.
          2) That trademark infringement has similar rules to copyright infringement, which require the action to be brought in a district in which the defendant "can be found."
          3) That the usage of the spammer's trademarks are *clearly* and *indisputably* within the realm of fair use and satire.

          If all of these apply, it is hard to fathom a good-faith basis for an attorney to have believed that an action should have been justified.

          With that conclusion, the filing would be in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and counsel for the plaintiff would be subject to sanctions, including court costs.

          Furthermore, in most states, sanctions in excess of $1,000 or so (except for discovery sanctions) must be reported to the state bar for disciplinary purposes.

          Additionally, the filing of a complaint with no good faith basis is a violation of ethical rules, and subject to discipline. Assuming that it is the attorney's first offense, I'd be surprised if it results in disbarment or even suspension; more likely a reprimand or private cautionary letter.

          hawk, esq.

        • Overlawyered.com : "Loser Pays" (Score:5, Informative)

          by Mad Man ( 166674 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:32AM (#11965126)

          Re:You've missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
          by lowrydr310 (830514) on Thursday March 17, @09:12AM (#11964442 [slashdot.org])

          Is it possible for the Plaintiff (the spammers in this case) to be ordered to pay the Defendant's legal bills when they (the plaintiffs) lose the case?

          IANAFL

          It's possible, but I don't know how likely it is. The trial lawyers, being a very powerful lobby, have consistently opposed the idea. See http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html [overlawyered.com]

          June 14, 2003
          Essay on loser-pays

          The following essay was written circa 1999 by our editor and formerly appeared on the site's topical page on loser-pays.

          * * *

          America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

          Overlawyered.com's editor wrote an account [reason.com] in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified [house.gov] before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". Not online, unfortunately, are most of the relevant sections from The Litigation Explosion, which argues at length for the loser-pays idea, especially chapter 15, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

          As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

          Also in 1995, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) published a succinct defense of the loser-pays principle [house.gov], terming it the "full recovery rule" and pointing out that it would improve the position of a large number of plaintiffs with meritorious claims who currently go undercompensated because of the need to pay their lawyers large sums which cannot be recovered from the opponent.

          Author James Fallows of The Atlantic called the idea "overdue" [theatlantic.com] and included it in his list of "Ten New Year's Resolutions for America" [theatlantic.com] (National Public Radio).

          The principle in other countries: .....

          Go to http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/000199.html [overlawyered.com] to read the rest of it.

          An example from Overlawyered.com's "Loser Pays [overlawyered.com]" archives (bold added):

          March 15, 2005
          "Doctor fights, wins; lawyers aren't swayed"

          Dr. Zev Maycon has been sued four times in three years; he's been dismissed before trial each time, but has missed weeks of work as a result, to the

  • Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:57AM (#11964302) Journal
    The judge will hopefully smack this one down. If the company doesn't like the CAN-SPAM act, they should appeal whatever case they lost against it, not go and sue the guy who reported them to the cops.

    • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:02AM (#11964350)
      Just like the judge smacked down the frivolous SCO lawsuit?

      Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

      • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Funny)

        by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:38AM (#11964658)
        Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

        Oreo's can make you fat?!? :-o

      • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Coolfish ( 69926 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:07AM (#11964921)
        Just like the judge smacked down the suit against Oreo cookies making people fat?

        The lawsuit was about how Oreo cookies did not disclose that they contain trans fatty acids (for which the safe level of consumption is 0 grams per day. Each Oreo cookie used to contain 1 gram of trans fat). This is like suing a company that fails to disclose that they are using a poison to hold the cookie together (which what hydrogenated fats should be, and practically have been, classified as). (disclaimer: you should read up on trans fats. not all trans fats are man made, artificial, or necessarily unhealthy.)

        • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:37AM (#11965181)
          I know the people behind the Oreo suit. Yes, what you're describing is correct, they were suing over transfatty acids. But they never expected to win the suit, it was merely a publicity stunt designed to get media attention in order to tell the public that transfatty acids are bad.

          There are no FDA regulations that say you have to show the amount of transfatty acids, unlike everything else you see in the package.

          So, yes, they fully expected the suit to be smacked down.

        • trans fats not that bad (Score:5, Interesting)

          by r00t ( 33219 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:42AM (#11965228) Journal
          Trans fats might not be the best dietary choice. They might even be the very worst type of fat.

          They are provably not anything like a poison though. They have become a huge part of the US diet over the past 100 years. Our expected lifetime has grown over that time, and is greater than that of many places that don't use trans fats. If trans fats were all that bad, we'd have noticed many decades ago.

          So don't be exaggerating to the point of dishonesty. Have a cookie.

          • They have become a huge part of the US diet over the past 100 years. Our expected lifetime has grown over that time, and is greater than that of many places that don't use trans fats.

            Utter nonsense. There have been a dozen major breakthroughs that have impacted life expectancy far more than an Orio might. In the last 100 years, we have wiped out childhood diseases such as polio, TB, mumps. We have learned how disease and viri spread, and how to control them. Everyone has fridges/freezers to keep food fre

        • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:4, Informative)

          by operagost ( 62405 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:09AM (#11965507) Homepage Journal
          You have a flair for the dramatic, but the FDA decided last year that the safe level was less than 2g per day in a 2000 kcal diet. That's more than zero.

          http://www.healthcastle.com/trans.shtml [healthcastle.com]

          I might also note that the FDA does not require that trans-fatty acids be listed explicitly on the nutrition facts label. It does require that they be properly counted, so if you look at the label and see this:

          3g total fat
          1g unsaturated
          1g saturated
          then the trans-fatty is the leftover amount, 1g.

      • Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jebell ( 567579 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:10AM (#11964936) Journal
        I think the spammers made a big mistake filing it in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judges in that particular district are known for not taking crap from attorneys. In fact, the trial docket is known as the "rocket docket." No continuances will be granted without a very good reason and the litigants are stuck with a very strict schedule. The motion to dismiss has a better shot at success there than a number of other federal courts.

        • could be because (Score:3, Informative)

          by budgenator ( 254554 )
          that's the where they are are;
          Omega World Travel, Inc.
          3102 Omega Office Park
          Fairfax, VA 22031.

          • Re:could be because (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jebell ( 567579 )

            Yes, but I don't know that the defendant in this case has the requisite minimum contacts for the court to assert in personam jurisdiction over him.

            Generally, a court may only assert jurisdiction over a defendant if that defendant has the requisite "minimum contacts" with the forum state. This may be satisfied in a number of ways, the most common of which are residency or doing business in the forum state. As far as I can tell, the only minimum contact I see is that he published the information in Virgin

      • SCO (Score:5, Informative)

        by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:25AM (#11965051) Journal
        See disclaimer in my other post about this not being legal advice.

        To dismiss a case on the initial filing, the judge must find that even if everything in the complaint were proved, the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief. That's not the case when alleging copyright infringement.

        The next chance would be a summary judgment motion. At that point, evidence is weakly tested with the presumption that the fact finder (judge or jury) will take it in its most favorable light, and the evidence for the other party in the least favorable. If no reasonable person could find for the plaintiff under those circumstaances, then summary judgement is granted.

        That's not a hard standard of the plaintiff to meet . . .

        hawk, esq.

    • Mr. Mumma have already lost the case (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just look at the name of the law... CAN-SPAM

  • Whats the rest of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wanderer1 ( 47145 ) <wanderer1&pobox,com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:57AM (#11964303)
    I find it hard to believe that there isn't another side to this tale.

    That said, if the company *IS* prosecuting on those grounds, an out of court settlement involving some guys named Vinny is probably at least as effective.

    W

    • Re:Whats the rest of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nodwick ( 716348 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:10AM (#11964417)
      From TFA:
      A key issue in the matter is the supposed opt-in nature of the list in question. Mumma's argument is that he never opted-in, so he shouldn't have to opt-out. Furthermore, he holds that opting-out only increases the chance of receiving more spam. This makes Mumma appear somewhat belligerent, and it doesn't help that his demands for a settlement for over $6,000 were accompanied by veiled threats regarding Google "caching" his complaint page. Furthermore, the fact that his site also suggested "setting a trap" to nail spammers (PDF of page at the time) make him looks lawsuit happy, although it isn't clear that this means anything other than documenting one's moves closely.
      Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight. The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...

      • Re:Whats the rest of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:34AM (#11964623) Homepage
        The strangest part of this whole affair is that spamming ultimately originates as a form of advertising. Here's someone who is patently not interested in the company's product, and has made a legal request under state law for them to stop sending him ads. Instead of complying, the company is now going to try to sue his pants off to show him who's boss. Supposing in some bizarro world they win, and are granted permission to keep sending him ads? I bet he's going to be really eager to buy things from them now ...

        I believe at least part of the problem (though I may be wrong in this case) is that the spammers who send the advertising and the people who are selling the product are two different companies. In a sense, the spammers have no financial interest in you actually buying the product, other than in that it maintains the image of spam as an effective advertising medium.

        Or even when they are the same company, it seems that companies who advertise through spam aren't relying on the inherent good-quality of their product for sales.

        So when it comes to legal action, the spammers aren't so worried about making the product look bad, or even making spam look bad (after all, it already looks about as bad as it's going to). What they're more worried about is their right to continue spamming.

      • Re:Whats the rest of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:37AM (#11964654)
        Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim look a bit less like a white knight

        I once recieved an abusive letter (Pinned under the windsheild wiper of my car) from another tenant in the same building where had just moved in. They were complaining that I was parkign in a spot that they had rights to and were paying for and which happened to be the best spot available. I returned a very polite letter that I made sure was ice cold and factual outlining that the parking spaces were numbered as where the apartments and that according to my rental agreement this parking spot Nr. X belongded to my aparment Nr. X and that I was in fact paying for it. There were no insults, no abuse and no gloating in the letter, I just explained that they were in fact squattin on my parking spot, not the other way around. I never heard from them again. The the moral of the story is that the biggest mistake you can make is to get carried away in an Oh, goody, I'm in the right... Now lets REALLY chew them out! type frenzy. Alot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

        • Re:Whats the rest of the story? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:07AM (#11964917) Homepage
          A lot of people end up making the mistake of hurting their own case by getting abusive or even insulting and thus ruin their position.

          It's absolutely astounding, the sheer number of people who don't realize that.
          • There's an art to writing lawyerly letters.

            You politely explain exactly what you may do to them if they don't do what you politely ask :)

            Actually, they're kind of fun--abut the only part of active practice that I miss . . .

            Also, whether it's fair or not, when you're right and the other guy is wrong but stubborn, the letterhead is worth what you pay for it--it tends to get better results (particularly if what you're asking is just "leave me alone") than if you had written the same exactt words yourself .
      • From TFA:

        [paraphrasing]

        The anti-spammer being sued (Mumma):

        • will not opt out of something he didn't opt into.
        • demands money for a settlement, even though the amount is far less than the law allows.
        • notes that info about this case will not just disappear (google cache, etc).
        • outlines ways of catching spammers by creating effective traps that document the details rather than "just hitting delete".

        Of course, as the article points out, none of this is actually illegal, even if it does make the victim l

        • Amen!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

          by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 )
          I sued Avtech [barbieslapp.com], in small claims, but they kept spamming. When we had our court hearing on January 3, 2005 I served them 20 other small claims cases -- their spam seemed to stop.

          There is power in numbers. That is why I post the information on spammers, so that others can sue.

          By sharing information and working with others to sue spammers, we can put a dent in spam.

  • What a great ad! (Score:3, Funny)

    by `Sean ( 15328 ) <sean@ubuntu.com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:57AM (#11964306) Homepage Journal
    Wow. This /. article is a pretty good ad for cruise.com. ;)

  • Standard SLAPP suit (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @08:58AM (#11964310)
    The courts are very familiar with SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

    Many states are adopting Anti-SLAPP [gigalaw.com] legislation that should make this easy to get dismissed and as TFA suggests impose sanctions against the plaintiff.

    • Re:Standard SLAPP suit (Score:4, Informative)

      by Joffrey ( 242525 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:15AM (#11964457)
      As far as I can tell, though, this isn't a SLAPP suit. It seems to be a pre-emptive filing to gain "home court" advantage.

      Firstly, while I wholeheartedly condemn spam and spammers, we should note that the "article" we all read was actually a press release by one party in litigation. There are probably some additional facts we don't know.

      For example, it appears that Mummers sues many spammers in his home jurisdiction (OK) because of the favorable laws there, and makes a tidy profit off of his side business of suing spammers. While the spammer in question is no doubt sleazy, it seems that they knew a lawsuit was almost certainly coming in Oklahoma, so they pre-emptively filed it in Virginia (their home turf) so as to make it easier to litigate.

      • Re:Standard SLAPP suit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nenolod ( 546272 ) <nenolod@gmail. c o m> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:41AM (#11964693) Homepage
        That's irrelevant. The fact that the individuals violated Oklahoma's anti spam law, means that they are liable for that, and that case would still be litigated in Oklahoma.

        This lawsuit is more intended to make the owners of cruise.com appear to be victimized, that's all there is to it. It's a fairly common move in litigation of this nature, and it rarely works out in the spammer's favour. Usually these things get dismissed from court.

      • Re:Standard SLAPP suit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OmniGeek ( 72743 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:14AM (#11964964)
        Well, as one who puts up with spam-fax 'cause we can't use anonymous call blocking, and who deletes lotsa spam from my inbox just to FIND my mail, I'm actually glad someone has found a way to profit from spam at the expense of the spammers.

        Even if Mr. Mummers does engage in suing spammers on a regular basis, and even if he makes a tidy living from it, this doesn't mean his suit is without merit. Unless he's abusing the law or the system (impossible for us to know without all the facts on hand), more power to him...
        • I agree with you wholeheartedly.

          However, when you start to play the litigation game, you have to be prepared for the possibility that the other side will fight back. If you make a lot of threats of litigation, expecting everyone to just cave and give you a few grand to "go away," you have to expect someone (even someone who is clearly "in the wrong") to fight back.
  • It makes it all that much easier to find them, and a whole hell of a lot more enjoyable to fuck them up.

  • Free Mumma! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Filmwatcher888 ( 595369 ) <filmwatcher888@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:00AM (#11964329) Journal
    Or at least charge him less, geez.

  • Slashdot should hire the Ars people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:01AM (#11964337)
    They actually write real summaries that explain things. It's quite amazing compared to what we get here at Slashdot. Just go read their story and compare.

  • America, land of the free...lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doublebackslash ( 702979 ) <doublebackslash@gmail.com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:01AM (#11964339)
    I LOVE living in a place that treats every lawsuit as if the defendant is guilty. For example, if i sue you over the rights to your property, even if I don't have ANY proof, I can prevent you from selling your home for as long as I can keep appealing the courts (hopefully) sane decision. Just think about what would happen if you were about to move and I did that. What if you were a corporation moving out of a factory building. The upkeep, the security risk, the TCO of the place could sink you if I kept you in court long enough. I hate that this country allows that sort of BS.
    • Dude, that's so untrue - america is the land of the free, that kind of thing doesn't happen in real life, just in hypothetical situations - it's like worrying about government monitoring, it's totally cool and safe, i'm sure they'll never abuse it, you just need to be more trusting!

      • in a couple of cases, though . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hawk ( 1151 ) <hawk@eyry.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:34AM (#11965150) Journal
        rent disputes in a couple of alrge cities do indeed work that way. In those cities you *can* stop paying rent, make up some phony excuse or allegation, and force a six month process.

        In other places it's not so easy :)

        I handled an eviction in El Cajon, CA, in which the deadbeats had watched too many programs about San Francisco evictions.

        There is a five day response period. They filed a "motion to quash service" on the grounds that "the process server is a suspected relative". That was enough to put it on the court calendar over a month away . . . (no judge looks at the answer; it just automatically schedules a hearing)

        I went in and got an "order shortening time" for a hearing the next day to quash their motion. The judge agreed that it was silly. Normally they would have had five days from then to file an answer or be out. I argued that as a sanction for the frivolous filing, time should be shortened to answer. She gave them until 5:00 the next day.

        They thought that they'd been ordered out, and were gone by then . . .

        hawk

  • Only in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kombat ( 93720 ) <kevin@swanweddingphotography.com> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:01AM (#11964340)
    In the US, you can sue for anything at all, and this is what happenes when a company with money picks on someone who doesn't. Hmm.. who does this remind us of? ??AA anyone? The case would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat, but first it has to get there, and that means that Mark Mumma will first have to hire a lawyer (which he already has, according to TFA).

    This is just another symptom of the twisted legal system that has been allowed to evolve in the US. When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

    • Re:Only in the US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsd-17 ( 765038 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:13AM (#11964448)
      When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

      Unfortunately many of the legislators are lawyers. It's not in their interest for this state of affairs to end.

      • Why does this meme spread? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:51AM (#11965334)
        Let's put this in terms we can understand:

        "The shoddy state of software today will last for as long as we have programmers. Because, after all, it's not in their interest for this state of affairs to end. If software becomes reliable, they're out of a job."

        If someone were to come on Slashdot and say this, a few people would loudly agree with them and quickly get modded -1 Troll. A lot more people would accuse them of being arrogant, closedminded and just generally stupid. Of course many--most!--programmers want reliable software. The benefits to us of reliable software are myriad and manifold. No more calls at 2am on a Sunday because the server crashed. No more scouring BUGTRAQ looking for the next exploit we have to defend against. No more wondering whether the software flying the airplane we're riding on was written by lowest-bidders working in Bangalore.

        The benefits to programmers from reliable software are so clear, so obvious, that we would laugh at anyone who seriously proposed that we deliberately kept software unreliable.

        And yet, the instant you say lawyers are deliberately keeping the legal system difficult, people nod their heads understandingly and compliment you on your wisdom.

        The benefits to a clean, efficient system of law are so huge and so obvious that, without exception, every single lawyer I know--and I know quite a lot of them--is an advocate for streamlining the legal system.

        The problem is that society is huge. The machinery of government is truly gargantuan. These enormous edifices of government were put in place for a reason: because as obnoxious as they are, they're a lot better than what came before. (Take the Voting Rights Act as an example. It's a colossal piece of legislation and is a constant pain in the ass during election years. But it's a lot better than Jim Crow.)

        So the problem Congress faces is, how do they pare government down and streamline it without returning us to the Bad Old Days we're trying so hard to avoid?

        This is a tough, tough problem--all the moreso since the law is, almost by definition, a safety-critical system.

        Imagine that you're given 100 million lines of source code. You're told, "Here. A lot of people are unhappy with it and they want major change right now. Oh, and while you're trying to strip out a few million lines and reduce bugcount, our coders are going to continue to write code to adjust to the ever-changing needs of our clients. Finally, remember that any bug you introduce has the potential to affect billions of people worldwide. Have a nice day!"

        Please, try looking at the problem as a pragmatist and a realist, not with the simple and sophomoric eyes of a cheap cynic. The world is more complex, and a far richer place, than can ever be sufficiently explained with cheap cynicism.
    • Well, just remove all the safety labels from everything and let the problem solve itself.

    • You miss the point (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      This is just another symptom of the twisted legal system that has been allowed to evolve in the US. When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?

      The lawsuit actually has to go before a judge before it can be declared baseless. Someone has to make that decision and in this "twisted legal system" that person is the judge. You want this thrown out quicker? Fine. But if you delegate

    • Re:Only in the US (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EvilBudMan ( 588716 )
      --When will legislators realize that it's time for serious legal reforms to end these types of frivolous, baseless lawsuits that are intended only to intimidate and harass?--

      When we quit electing lawyers to office.

  • We need to knock them off their horse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:01AM (#11964341) Homepage
    " "It simply filed a lawsuit in a court that it knew had no jurisdictional authority what-so-ever," Mumma explained. "Today's spammer tends to think it will escape prosecution because they've never been prosecuted. It has a false sense of security because nobody has come along and legally knocked it off its high horse."

    A common tactic nowadays. Take someone to court even on a frivolous charge, knowing they can't afford to play the legal game. This works until someone takes the bluff and says, "OK, buddy, I'll see you in court and I intend to make you lose, and lose badly." For that you need a deep-heeled "victim," precisely the type that tends not to get sued in these sort of situations.

    But every now and then a bully miscalculates, as we saw with SCO versus IBM. So what we need is for someone with bucks to take on these spamming sleazes, point out they are misusing the law with these abusive lawsuits, and knock them off their high horse.

    • Re:We need to knock them off their horse (Score:5, Insightful)

      by idontgno ( 624372 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:11AM (#11964429) Journal
      But every now and then a bully miscalculates

      And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).

      It's a nasty weapon which can be most effectively wielded by the nastiest creatures. Normal productive law-abiding citizens can only get shafted.

      Kinda makes vigilantism look appealing, sometimes.

      • And even in these cases, the bully gets away by declaring bankrupcy (effectively nullifying any judgement against them), dissolving the offending "corporate entity", and re-forming a little while later under a different name (using assets they manage to illegally hide before vanishing).

        It is getting tuffer to declare Chapter-11 (bankruptcy) in the US specifically for cases that you have just described. The problems are being worked on, it just takes a while.
        • Tougher to file for people to file Chapter 11. Not corporations, it is very easy to disolve a corporation after paying out all the revenue to employees, etc...

        • No it's not (Score:3, Informative)

          by hawk ( 1151 )
          It's getting toughter to file Chapter 7, not Chapter 11. And "tougher" under the new law means that if you have enough income that you could pay part (10%? 25%? I forget) of your debts over the next five years, you have to pay that much in a chapter 13 rather walking away in a chapter 7.

          Nearly anyone or anything can file Chapter 11, but the creditors have to come out better than they would under chapter 7.

          There's even a case where a housewife filed chapter 11, and the court found that she could do so (I
    • Yes, this IS, big money going after someone pointing out the truth (I'll refrain from Bush bashing), to silence them and keep the public in the dark. He's going to need the EFF, and ACLU to fight this one since the spammers obviously have VERY deep pockets.

  • Great guy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by strider44 ( 650833 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:02AM (#11964343)
    I'm not sure whether he is profiting from sueing spammers (don't care - even if he is he's still doing us all a good service) but good on him, and I hope that he gets through the frivolous lawsuit and counterclaims.

    I don't know about America, isn't it illegal to make such lawsuits?
  • Cruise.com has filled in the blank in the chain of:
    1) Spam
    2) ???
    3) Profit!!!

    It's SUE!!!!
  • Keep sending them spam, and keep spending them to court.

    What do these two things have in common?

    1. Both or forced upon you.
    2. Both put a cost burden (time, money, etc) on you.

    What a great world we live in.

  • cruise.com (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why not make that a link in the article description. Then we can slashdot them and drive up their bandwidth bill to $4million.

  • Will there be another win or a first defeat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:04AM (#11964363)
    Interesting stuff at the very end of the emediawire article.

    Copied:

    SUEaSpammer.com and SUEDbySPAMMERS.com are trademarks of MummaGraphics, Inc. Cruise.com is a registered trademark of Omega World Travel, Inc.

    MummaGraphics, Inc., founded in 1993, is a provider of Internet web hosting and web site design services and has begun directing its energies to curbing unwanted junk email, a/k/a. spam. MummaGraphics began suing spammers in August 2004 and intends to file several more lawsuits in the future. MummaGraphics, Inc. is currently undefeated in court.

  • Fight. (Score:2)

    by eddy ( 18759 )

    Shades of TaubmanSucks.com

    Maybe Public Citizen [citizen.org] can look into it.

  • My Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by varmittang ( 849469 )
    How the hell do spammers get rights like this to be able to sue someone who asks from them to stop sending stuff to him? I mean, can't we make a do not spam list like the do not call list. Or are the telemarketers going to use this as presidence and start calling me agian?

  • Look at the press release. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by karmaflux ( 148909 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:06AM (#11964385)
    Mumma wrote it. Why did he make a press release? By the way, eMediaWire is owned by PR Web, and is a site where anyone can issue a press release. For instance this [prweb.com] is the latest from my hosting network. Just for instance. My instinct is to blow off anything on PR Web as crap.

  • Easy slashdot links (Score:5, Informative)

    by AnonymousCowheart ( 646429 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:08AM (#11964400)
    Easy /. links to the spammers sites are:
    here [cruise.com] and
    here [owt.net]
    Please click away

  • Their suing for defamation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:10AM (#11964418) Journal
    The spammer is suing this fellow for defamation for putting insulting remarks about them on his website. Clearly they're trying to both shut him up about their spamming operation and keep him from pursuing them in court for violating CAN-SPAM. This company will probably end up paying every cent of their victim's legal bills, and are only drawing attention to themselves. Pretty foolish, if you ask me.

  • Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by northcat ( 827059 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:10AM (#11964419) Journal
    The headline from ARS Technica "Spammer sues anti-spammer for $4 million". The headline from Slashdot "Spammers Sue Spam Victim For $4 million".

  • loser pays court fees (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:19AM (#11964495)
    Some countries control frivolous lawsuits by making the loser pay the court fees on both sides. In the US that is considered a violation of due process, so it genrally isnt done, though a judge can order it. Thus, frivoulous lawsuits can be filed fairly readily.

  • Sounds like (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sounds like this guy is being sued for being a bit of an ass.

    He's right, of course, but he still sounds like a bit of an ass.
  • I'd like to donate few $ to Mumma to support his defence. Would be nice to see people joining me.

  • The cheapest lawyers cost about $200 an hour, and sometimes paralegals will help you fill out the paperwork. But even so it will take several lawyer hours to churn out a boiler plate court filing (many examples at The Smoking Gun [thesmokinggun.com]).

  • They have an 800 number on their front page. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 17, 2005 @09:32AM (#11964598)
    Show them what spam is about -- call.

  • You have ALL missed the point (Score:5, Informative)

    by bsdbigot ( 186157 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:09AM (#11964929) Journal
    TFA is decidedly one-sided. By looking at Mumma's *own* websites, this is a pretty clear-cut case of entrapment by Mumma.

    For example, head over to SueASpammer [sueaspammer.com], and you will see right off the bat he calls for people to

    1. set a trap
    2. sue

    Reading a little further, he implies that people should falsify their identity when OPTING IN TO AN EMAIL LIST, and then later using that as leverage (e.g. say "Who the hell is Joe Blow? My name is John Public). I'd have to look into any applicable law, but in my dictionary [answers.com], that constitutes fraud.

    Number three, if you read Omega's suit, they allege that Mumma did not comply with the provided opt-out procedure, but instead called them and almost immediately started threatening them. Mumma allegedly would not provide his information so that they might comply with his "request" to be removed. Instead, he was belligerent, insulting, and threatening. This may not be illegal, but it is certainly in poor taste and is a mark against him. Lawyers and judges don't want to deal with fanatics, for the most part - they want to deal with reasonable people that have a legitimate claim.

    Number four, since Mumma's request for removal was NOT VALID via his own stupid actions, and since he allegedly SIGNED UP for this "spam," via indirect admission at SueASpammer.com procedures, this is not a valid claim under CAN-SPAM. Furthermore, this also invalidates Mumma's claim under Oklahoma law, see 776.5.3 at SpamLaws OK [spamlaws.com].

    I would not at all be surprised to see Omega et al. come out of this not only unscathed, but smelling like a rose.

    • You've misread his website. (Score:5, Informative)

      by aug24 ( 38229 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:04AM (#11965452) Homepage
      He says that when you get spam (completely unsolicited), click on it and fill in unique (thus fake) details. Then when you are contacted you can link the company to the spam.

      Next: why should he comply with their opt-out procedure. Had you read the article carefully, you would see that he talking about spam that he certainly did not opt in to, merely responded to.

      I hope and expect he will win.

      Justin.

    • Re:You have ALL missed the point (Score:5, Informative)

      by Manchot ( 847225 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:36AM (#11965770)
      It's a good thing that entrapment only applies to criminal cases, then. Even then, the standards under which it applies are very high. See this Slate article [msn.com] for more details:

      1. The idea of committing the crime came from law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant.
      2. The law enforcement officers induced the person to commit the crime.
      3. The defendant was not ready and willing to commit this type of crime before being induced to do so.

      Even if it did apply in civil cases (which it doesn't), this wouldn't even come close to entrapment. Not one of the three legal conditions was satisfied. Basically, you've made the mistake of thinking that traps and entrapment are one in the same, but they're not.

      Furthermore, though it may be fraud in a loose sense of the word, it doesn't even come close to criminal fraud. Thousands upon thousands of cases have hinged upon evidence gained from FBI agents posing as 13-year-old girls or undercover cops posing as crackheads, all of whom give phony names. Giving a false name for the sake of obtaining evidence is completely legal, unless that false name gives the impression that you are another specific person (e.g., if you are a drug dealer and the cop comes to you claiming to be your boss). Random names, though, are just fine.

  • Am I the only one that read the suit? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by natet ( 158905 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:18AM (#11964996)
    According to the plaintiffs, the defendant (mumma) called them on the phone (specifically their legal department) and asked to opt out. When they asked for his email address, he refused to give it to them telling them to go to his site to find out what it is. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like an "Opt-out" scenario to me. If he wasn't even willing to give his email address to them to have it removed, that sounds to me like he was attempting to defraud the spammers. Much like the old auto insurance scam where someone pulls in front of your car and then slams on the breaks to get you to rear-end them. He has to prove that they have another method for getting email addresses for their "e-deals" other than the opt-in section of their website. If he can't do that, then their case against him is pretty solid. He opted in, he refused to opt-out, therefore they can still send him email.

    I realize that this may be a very unpopular opinion on slashdot, but If half the things they allege in their suit are true, this guy is about as unscrupulous as most spammers. Companies aren't the only ones that can bring frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to get the other side to settle rather than go to trial. Of course, we probably don't have all the facts from either side, so the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
    • There's a transcript of the call here [spammerpay.us]. I'm not sure who transcribed it, but it is apparently the phone call you are referring to.

      He provided them with a list of domains which should be removed from their list, including his. So I think he really did provide them with the info they needed to take him off.

      But you may be right about his intentions, as he makes several comments about the fact that they are already indebted to him. It's a short read, check it out.

  • My other idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SoundGuyNoise ( 864550 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @10:27AM (#11965073) Homepage
    Make a new e-mail account.

    Create a black webpage, with black background, and all text, links, and viewed links as black.

    In clear, concise, plain English, post said e-mail address with explicit instructions that no commercial interest may send you unsolicited e-mails, nor will the owner of the address ever opt-in to any mailing list.

    Make sure you link to this black page from someplace else, so the web bots can find it.

    When spam arrives, give them ONE CHANCE to follow the law and their own printed disclosure to remove you from their lists. Save all spam and spam removal requests as evidence.

    1. Post e-mail
    2. Unsubscribe
    3. Sue
    4. PROFIT!!!!

  • Worked for cruise.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by theskunkmonkey ( 839144 ) on Thursday March 17, 2005 @11:33AM (#11965737) Homepage
    I worked for Omega World Travel in their "web" department and worked specifically on the cruise.com property. This was a number of years ago just before the DotCom bust. I had the chance to work directly with the owner Gloria Bohan and her husband Daniel Bohan. It's a woman owned biz on paper, he really runs the show. At the time I worked there, they had not yet grapsed the concepts of the internet well yet, but had very hot properties (cruise.com) that were pulling in very lucrative money from what I gathered. They were expending large sums in purcashing domains and had plans to grow the division. They did recognize the potential of the internet market, but had a very poor understanding of technical details at the time. I was originally hired to increase their standings in search engines and design banners for advertising. I used the usual techniqes of the day including keyword stuffing to get better positioning. Of course this included using some names of competitors. To show you how clueless the owner was at the time, he saw the competitors name in the keywords during a weekly meeting and proceeded to whine (yes, he whined like a child, stamped his feet, and had tantrums) about his competitor showing in the keywords. I attempted to explain the reasons and was told I didn't know what I was doing (the main reason I was hired), to remove the keywords, and go back to my office. Suffice to say that was my last day on the job. Now I read this article and I am not suprised one bit by the actions of cruise.com and OWT. I am sure that once Dan grasped the concept of email solicitaion the flood gates were opened. To see that he has been stupid enough to direct his legal department to follow this course of action is about par for him. He still dosen't fully understand the whole picture. I sure hope the people I worked with there have been smart enough to move on.

  • Better Business Bureau (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kidlinux ( 2550 ) <.duke. .at. .spacebox.net.> on Thursday March 17, 2005 @12:10PM (#11966140) Homepage
    Anyone else notice the BBB logo at the bottom of cruise.com's website?

    I wonder if the BBB knows what's goin on here, and if they have any rules against unsolicited email. It might help Mumma's case if the BBB has logged any complaints against cruise.com for spamming.

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close