http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4439777%5E1702,00.html

Originally posted by Editor
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4439777%5E1702,00.html

:eek:
Weird ...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say, but suing an individual for identifying a spammer is a bit over the line. As offensive as it may be, spamming is not an illegal enterprise. SPEWS is an ad hoc collection of self-appointed Internet cops with no real authority or accountability and as such has put at risk the very people they are trying to help. I have a problem with that, too.

:angry: There should be a law, that you can sue SPAMERS for the costs of downloading, deleting all those e-mails it takes minimum 15-20 min a day ~ 20-30 € * 20 = 600 € per month

Originally posted by Angel78
:angry: There should be a law, that you can sue SPAMERS for the costs of downloading, deleting all those e-mails it takes minimum 15-20 min a day ~ 20-30 € * 20 = 600 € per month

Yeah I agree.. with +/- 30 spam mails everyday it costs quite some time to delete them all....:D

Originally posted by Angel78
:angry: There should be a law, that you can sue SPAMERS for the costs of downloading, deleting all those e-mails it takes minimum 15-20 min a day ~ 20-30 € * 20 = 600 € per month
I bill the spam industry using the strategy at http://SpamBattle.com :D

Spammers send me spam. I cost the companies who sell the software the spammers use. Sounds like a fair swap to me. :dgrin:

Originally posted by alchiba
...spamming is not an illegal enterprise...

Not yet but this is currently being worked on and possibly some sort of law will be passed in the United States against spammers. There's been a lot of discussion about this recently and the government is pressured into "fixing" this issue. It will probably take at least another few years but it is something that is being addressed.

I still find the above article very strange... :eek:

Originally posted by markblair


Not yet but this is currently being worked on and possibly some sort of law will be passed in the United States against spammers

Some individual states in the U.S. now have anti-spam laws on the books: http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ However, enforcement is an entirely different matter.

And of course Michigan is not one of them... :angry:

Thanks for the link, though. I know some States are working on this individually but it is supposed to go to a higher Federal statute as well. United States government works a bit slow as some may already know.

I think people are misunderstanding this case. The plaintiff is alleging that the defendant made an *unfounded* complaint against them.

If this is true -- that is, if they were in fact not sending out spam -- then their suit is perfectly justified. Otherwise, the case will be thrown out of court.

Given how often people agree to receive email and then later forget and think that they are being spammed, it is inevitable that a non-spammer will be labelled as a spammer at some point. I don't know if that was the case here, but it is certainly possible, and we should leave it to the legal system to work that out.

I hope this serves as a warning: Don't accuse people of spamming unless you've made a reasonable attempt to ensure that you're correct.

Originally posted by cperciva
I think people are misunderstanding this case. The plaintiff is alleging that the defendant made an *unfounded* complaint against them.


That's even more startling, being sued for merely complaining. I seriously doubt one complaint brought down an entire company's marketing effort. This horse won't run.

Originally posted by alchiba
That's even more startling, being sued for merely complaining.

Not at all. If I post "LinkStream Technologies is a spamhaus, don't do any business with them", and (since I'm a well-respected member of the webhostingtalk community) you lose business as a result, then I've done you injury through my false statement, and you have the right to legal recourse.

Originally posted by cperciva


Not at all. If I post "LinkStream Technologies is a spamhaus, don't do any business with them", and (since I'm a well-respected member of the webhostingtalk community) you lose business as a result, then I've done you injury through my false statement, and you have the right to legal recourse.

Yes, you are correct but that's not what is being alleged in the suit:


The company says Mr McNicol has "procured, induced, incited, persuaded, encouraged, organised, facilitated and/or advised SPEWS" to block t3 Direct's e-mails.


As I read it, the defendant merely reported the alleged spammer to SPEWS. It was SPEWS that made the determination the company was spamming and took the action to block the email. Unless there is more to the story than is being reported.

Originally posted by alchiba
As I read it, the defendant merely reported the alleged spammer to SPEWS. I don't even read it that way. He "posted t3 Direct's details on the Internet." SPEWS then "spotted" those details. So it doesn't read that he directly contacted SPEWS at all.

But because of action SPEWS then took, the company is saying that it lost its internet access and that's what they're asking for money for: to replace that access, and for lost business from the period in which they don't have access.

So the approach they're taking is that there was nothing wrong with the actions of any internet providers, or with the actions of SPEWS, but that those entities were acting on the basis of an false statement by the defendant. Doesn't seem at all far-fetched, as long as they can prove that they really don't spam.

I wonder, though, if they're going to sue "The Australian" for identifying the company in the first sentence of that article as "a company which makes its money by sending Internet users unwanted e-mails" -- which is what they'll be trying to prove that they are not!

Originally posted by JayC
I don't even read it that way. He "posted t3 Direct's details on the Internet." SPEWS then "spotted" those details. So it doesn't read that he directly contacted SPEWS at all.
Yes it does:


t3 Direct's parent company The Which Company Pty Ltd is now suing Mr McNicol, alleging he sent an unfounded complaint to SPEWS which has halted its legitimate email-sending business.


Originally posted by JayC
I wonder, though, if they're going to sue "The Australian" for identifying the company in the first sentence of that article as "a company which makes its money by sending Internet users unwanted e-mails" -- which is what they'll be trying to prove that they are not!

ROFL! Good catch! :D

Originally posted by cperciva
Not at all. If I post "LinkStream Technologies is a spamhaus, don't do any business with them", and (since I'm a well-respected member of the webhostingtalk community) you lose business as a result, then I've done you injury through my false statement, and you have the right to legal recourse.

Yes, and that is referred to as slander. That is when you make false statements against a company that does them harm financially. Just like cperciva said, you better make sure what you are complaining about is legitimate. It will be interesting to see how this one works out and if the complainer was wrong or was actually spammed.

Originally posted by alchiba

Yes it does:It seems to be contradictory, but this is what seems to have happened: the defendant claims, as the first reference in the article says, that he posted the information to the internet -- not directly to SPEWS. SPEWS "spotted" that information and added it to its database.

The company is accusing the defendant of having made the complaint to SPEWS, but is presenting as evidence of that only the SPEWS listing -- which would be pretty shaky evidence, as the above possibility points out.

Lots of links, for anyone interested in digging into it: http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/

Originally posted by markblair
It will be interesting to see how this one works out and if the complainer was wrong or was actually spammed. Right... it seems, using as evidence only what I've read this morning, like this company would have a hard time proving that they don't spam. Given that, they'd have a hard time winning the case. Also, like I mentioned before, they're accusing the defendant of having made a report to SPEWS but the evidence of that looks pretty weak.

So while the principle of suing someone who makes a false complaint is sound, this particular case looks shakey.

Originally posted by markblair
And of course Michigan is not one of them... :angry:


Don't be too hasty. If your servers are located in a state that does have anti-spam laws a case could be made that the illegal act occurred within that state, since the spam physically originated there. This same logic is being used by states trying to collect sales taxes from e-commerce sites.

In their complaint, the company is sueing for a new server. WTF? Why would they need a new server? I also don't understand why it takes them 20 days to get a new internet connection...

Originally posted by Dogma
In their complaint, the company is sueing for a new server. WTF? Why would they need a new server? I also don't understand why it takes them 20 days to get a new internet connection... It's an unfortunate fact of the western legal system. Everyone exaggerates, and asks for more than they really should have. Their demands seem pretty silly to anyone even aware of what a server is, but there's always a chance that a judge or jury won't get it, or that by inflating the numbers you'll be in a better place in case of a settlement.

I've been involved as a consultant in a couple of court cases where I've crunched raw numbers provided by client organizations and come up with damages based on projected income if the "incident in question" hadn't happened. I don't think I've done anything as blatant as that inclusion of a new server, but I've certainly taken an optimistic approach to making those income projections!

WTF would they need a new server for? LOL

That's how the legal system works. If you don't claim something initially, it's pretty hard to add it in, but if you claim something which doesn't make sense, it is very easy to take it out.

As a result, people go to trial asking for more or less everything under the sun, and over the course of the trial things get cut out one by one.

My favorite example of this was a company suing for damages caused by a faulty server; they included in their "related costs" things like a reinforced floor and an air conditioning system, but didn't mention (until the opposing numbers people came over to look around) that the 3'x3' patch of reinforced floor wasn't underneath the server -- they had a fridge on top of it -- and the air conditioning system was being used to cool the entire floor.

I think this link is something that might be of interest to everyone.

http://www.junkbusters.com/junkemail.html

Thanks,
Michael Barker