Screwing with "Adknowledge Rewards"

[kuznetz]

Thank you,

In fact, I can't think of any way of acquiring an e-mail address illegally

1) But what if the address has never been published in the Internet?

2) Suppose it’s indeed ALWAYS possible to publish an address AFTERWARDS at some corroborant web site, whose master is on your payrole, and state it as a proof. But HOW that webmaster, in his turn, is to PROVE he got the address legally?

Merlyn, many thanks!

and lost - even having to pay AdKnowledge's legal fees... so yeah, they are legal. See

I only see that american law and justice is real strange.

Not only the CAN-spam act exists,

but I also heard that judge Cocoras ruled that SpamHaus has to pay to David Lindhardt. Shame, indeed

Interesting article, here's a quote from the wrap-up

Yes, indeed. You just omitted the more interesting part:

every new anti-marketing law with a private right of action will stir up more action than some chum thrown into shark-infested waters.

It’s quite clear by that, that mister Goldman is a spam-oriented expert. He virtually names anti-spam as anti-marketing!!! so, spam in his view — is apparently marketing, not criminal business as it really is.

Shame to him, really. Shame

[MightyYar]

Thank you,

1) But what if the address has never been published in the Internet?

2) Suppose it’s indeed ALWAYS possible to publish an address AFTERWARDS at some corroborant web site, whose master is on your payrole, and state it as a proof. But HOW that webmaster, in his turn, is to PROVE he got the address legally?

Not only that, I don't think that there is any law against making a website that just spiders the web looking for email addresses. Using them for commercial spam is forbidden, but I don't think "just putting them on the web" would get you in trouble. Further, non-commercial emails might be just fine. I've already gotten a Ron Paul spam this election season... OTOH, I'm not a lawyer

I only see that american law and justice is real strange.

The law is strange, but the justice system is pretty straightforward. CAN-spam is fairly useless legislation, but the SpamHaus case went that way because the SpamHaus folks didn't show up to court! When a defendant has been sued but does not show up in civil court, the default judgment occurs - and the judge really doesn't have any choice in the matter.

SpamHaus should have fought the case. They could still ignore the verdict if they had lost, and they'd be in no worse a position than they are now. If they had won, it would have deterred spammers from suing in the future.

[rconner]

I only see that american law and justice is real strange.

I think that in the U.S. we have generally been reluctant to put arbitrary limits on free speech and commercial activity. For many people who are not tuned in to the criminal or abusive nature of spam, "spam" = "commercial speech" and that is about as much thought as they can put into it.

I think that the term "spam" may be a bit vague for prosecutors to use, even with CAN spam in place. It seems to be far more effective to go after what the spammers are selling (e.g., controlled drugs or counterfeits of controlled drugs, etc.) or the illegal techniques they use (e.g., botnets).

-- rick

[turetzsr]

<snip>

In fact, I can't think of any way of acquiring an e-mail address illegally

1) But what if the address has never been published in the Internet?

2) Suppose it’s indeed ALWAYS possible to publish an address AFTERWARDS at some corroborant web site, whose master is on your payrole, and state it as a proof. But HOW that webmaster, in his turn, is to PROVE he got the address legally?

<snip>

...IMHO, I see nothing inherently illegal in that. Of course, I didn't read all of the CAN-spam act, especially not the sections quoted, above, by Merlyn. <g>

[kuznetz]

rconner:

I think that in the U.S. we have generally been reluctant to put arbitrary limits on free speech and commercial activity.

I finally got the idea, thank you.

It's better to let them spam, than to make for a chance that you yourself be forced to shut up, someday.

I got the idea because that's exactly what happened to me just recently.

I have been unanimously defamed and reprimanded at russian VirusInfo forum

http://virusinfo.info/showthread.php?t=141...mp;goto=newpost

for just adhering to closing port 25 as a reasonable measure to fight spam.

The moderators there do not like the idea, and they just won't let me speak.

So, I guess I should change my mind and stick with judge Cocoras. Alas