Thanks, Will, for the clarification. I agree that this will be a *very* interesting case and a lot of fun to watch. :) I should clarify one thing I said earlier in which I mentioned the court's "opinion." That seems to imply something lengthy. In fact, it was not. The order was a one-page TRO. -Declan On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Will rodger wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Declan, in reply to questions about Cyber Promo's statue re: AOL wisely wrote:
No. A customer buys service from AOL and in doing so signs a contract with the company. AOL and the customer each has certain rights and obligations spelled out in the contract.
I confess I don't know if AOL's contract allows them to block spam. But in any case, spammers are not customers.
-Declan
Cyber Promotions of course is not now a client of AOL, which is one the company's defenses against AOL. Although AOL attorneys don't make the connection outright, their filings seem to imply that once one is an AOL customer, he's always subject to their rules. Wallace, it seems, had an account or two with AOL and was spamming during that time in violation of terms of service. They soon bumped him from the service.
Now that he's not a subscriber, they claim Wallace is still violating terms of service. How that's relevant to a former subscriber is far from clear. Wallace's attorneys, of course say it isn't relevant at all.
No doubt about it; this one is going to be a lot of fun.
Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Inter@ctive Week
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.9
iQEVAgUBMjN30UcByjT5n+LZAQEO0QgAhKgbD1ljZfDoZR/J9PF9wQFgZxoSM8DZ SfhfPMNDnBDqx1dq2qjxbxKC0uqP5AQq76ZPr+MVexvdI9ec+8W9DFW/O8ujOsJT yU/vg0XnWC3kNeQVW9OpTjlNZrlm37TRM5Fl/JeBxrFlws1aS1fG57Xnq2YYEJJ2 hrn20q9szJiRLnFJ0hSfjhsYkLir7qErhqMMOu0kw1HAqfA7kAzmoxD4ukaeqqL9 Hkqqf2E59xtOSvmMRtqgtGhUijiMeuO1K/wCITp0SS6U4XieeHrV5jpfY3RU6c2s g7OBHkMq6fjzWO29WJO67imOeb45bsZMM3vvqKlH5lxXHR+g1DjUnw== =Iatg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //