Spammers Finally Under the Legal Gun? 204
MarkvW writes with this welcome bit of Schadenfreude: "People are finally starting to use the anti-spam laws in the malevolent manner in which they were intended — unlimited consumer lawsuits from unlimited plaintiffs!" The story's protagonist is my hero for the season.
Re:Dan is... odd (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't.
I'm not Dan, but I've dealt with people who think like you before.
Let me put it simply: I didn't opt in to your spam. You're already stealing my time and resources if you managed to get it through my spam filters. So I'm sure as fuck not going to trust you to opt me back out of it.
Re:spam is just an example of e-Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's using my resources to "speak" without asking me first.
The first amendment does not require me to hold your protest rally in my garden. I may do it, provided I support your case or at least don't care, but the 1st does not require me to surrender my property or my rights to something (in this case, the storage space on a server that I have the right to use) to let someone execute his 1st amendment right.
Don't Waste Your Time (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to actually make a difference in the spam epidemic, you need to address the underlying cause of spam. You need to accept the fact that spammers are not spamming you to piss you off; rather they are spamming you because they make money doing so.
In other words, the only way we will ever stop spam is to address the economic issues behind spam.
Re:delusions (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, he's winning those court cases, and earns enough money doing so to make a living, so I'm not sure about delusions.
$50 per day??? No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Under California Law, Business & Professions Code Section 17529.5 it is $1,000 per e-mail.
But, there are two things you forget: (1) that there is a cost; and (2) if many people do it, it will bankrupt the people who are advertised by the spam. This threat may convince companies that will hire spammers to think carefully before hiring a spammer.
Re:You'd think TFA could at least get English righ (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't happen to work as a spammer do you? I don't see how any reasonable person could think this is morally wrong.
I also don't see anything morally wrong with your example you gave either however it isn't exactly equal to what this guy is doing since he has evidence.
Everyone's tired of the internet being treated like a toilet (except you it seems) by companies. If this dude can clean it up a little then that's good by me regardless of what reasons he has to do it.
Re:You'd think TFA could at least get English righ (Score:2, Insightful)
It's morally wrong because he's being no greater than your average RIAA shill. I hate spam as much as the next guy, but he's not suing these companies to make them stop, he's suing them to get them to settle (so, among other things, a judge can't order them to stop).