In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 05/24/2007
at 05:42 PM, "Thompson, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>While you and I agree it is SPAM, the U CAN SPAM act was passed into
>law -- perhaps it is not the bill our friend has quoted, but
>never-the-less it was passed into law.
Alas, yes, but S977 does *not* define spam and does *not* legalizes
it. What it does do is nullify various state laws that had provided
statutory damages and a right to private action.
>The U CAN SPAM act basically says that if you do not commit fraud
>with your subject line.....opt out directions.... Then you too can
>SPAM in the USofA.
No, it doesn't. It just makes legal action more difficult.
>So much for trespass to chattel
That isn't affected; S877 only overrides state laws that are specific
to e-mail. The problem is that unless you are a large provider a law
suit for theft by conversion, theft of service or trespass to chattel
will cost you more than the damages you recover.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
