[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:59:02 -0700
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Good point....then the way to deal with spammers is to remove the free
lunch. Telemarketers can get nasty fines for repeated callings after being
told to cease calling, email spammers are even more disadvantaged since I
don't have to write anyting down, I only need to keep a copy of their spam
and my cease and desist reply and their next spam. It's hard to believe
that some protocol, legal and network, that can be used to deal with this.
Richard Hartman <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
10/19/01 09:57 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Craig [mailto:email@example.com]
> Spam is cost-shifting. Transmission and storage costs are
> borne by the recipient and the ISPs; the latter pass the expense on to
> the former, so in essence we are all funding spammers by paying the
> internet bill.
> > We can teach against it, but some people are just going to
> do whatever
> > they please and we must respect their right to do so.
> Bullshit. The flipside of a right to free speech is a
> not listen.
Moreover, spamming is not an excercise of free-speech. It is an
attempt at free advertising. Basically, they are getting something
for nothing. They are (generally) trying to sell something, and
not have to pay to advertise it.
The advertisers pay nothing to send thounsands of mails out. (Except
perhaps in the cases where they are stupid enough to hire one of the
spamming services to send the mail for them.) The freight is being
paid by the internet subscribers in lost bandwidth, lost time wading
through the @*@#!@ in their inbox, and actual monetary costs for
transmission & storage.
Spam is not a free speech issue, it is a free lunch issue.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!