-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 15:54 9/16/96, Ian Goldberg wrote:
This piece from RISKS looks interesting. My computer certainly _is_
"equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper."
Now, are HipCrime et al. liable for $500 in damages for each piece of spam? If so, where do I sign up?
The intent of that law is to prevent the shifting of advertising costs to the unwilling recipients of junk faxes. (The $500 per message damages figure is what prompted me to raise my proofreading rates to $500 per message.) Twisting this law to apply it to junk email sent to computers with carefully selected peripherals and net connections is certainly following that anti-cost-shifting intent. Quite amazing, that, to twist a law so cruelly and at the same time follow its intent. However, which way a judge would jump on it remains to be seen. One source considers its application to junk email to be unlikely, because in essence it's too much of a twist. See: http://www.ca-probate.com/faxlaw.htm for another copy of the law, and http://techweb.cmp.com/net/issues/036issue/036law.htm for an opinion that actual application of the law to junk email is unlikely. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMj4YF/obez3wRbTBAQEHVQQAgP+35ZmOpsw1A7VsMHAONCFL4c5+xXSI 8NR9bibFZ+X+vNRSgp8KsEH2JyUk3g50ygYWx8DrzC0jhDdu902VTTN9lI92RJf5 66P5mzOCIzbfULra7wy4nSjfGR7vRTNrvY3y5fKodDvPRekkd8TcBSn/aPW/ONRa Gk/AbxKd6Cc= =qTcT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. ... Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects." -- Judge Stewart Dalzell Unsolicited advertising/promotional email proofread for $500/message! Your sending such a message to me is an explicit request for my services!