Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
No they take them to Spamtanamo.
|
lol yeah don't we all wish there was one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
Cyberheat's attorney made this request:
"The overriding theory of the DOJ's case - absolute liability for the owners of websites advertised by email - seemed especially ominous to Cyberheat's attorney Pete Wellborn, who stated, ‘Any company with an Internet presence should run - not walk - to the office of their nearest congressperson and demand congressional action to prevent and eliminate this absurdly tortuous construction of CAN-SPAM by the government.'
|
Well it sure would set a dangerous precedent to hold a corporate entity responsible for people who violate terms of use when they're acting as unlicensed third-party contractors, be it promotional or what not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
I just added that we should also ask that they stop wasting our tax payer dollars to find potential obscenity cases that are thrown out for being unconstitutional; I was not implying the two points (Spam/Obscenity) were connected in this case.
|
Only in their uselessness and as wasteful expenditures (though making someone burn money defending themselves over vacuous accusations can be a good method of harrassment if you can afford it - and the DoJ can).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
I can't be the only one concerned or interested in a proactive approach to protect my interests.
|
It is NOT proactive to state that TopBucks "failed to mention that you must obey it or you could be fined, go to jail, or worst" if one didn't sign the acknowledgement.
At best it's highly misinterpreted, and that is using the utmost consideration in assuming you read the thing quickly, mistook what was written, did not read through to the subsequent documents, and went on to post impulsively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
As the industry starts to feel the pressure of an economic turn and capital is diminshing it is not a coincidence that these cases are hitting now.
|
This is in no way a barometre of the state of things. Cyberheat was first taken to court over the actions of its affiliate/s three years ago. If you read the rest of it and the articles in the industry press, it's obvious Topbucks/Cyberheat decided to settle because it was the most opportune and expeditious time, not to mention the least expensive - also, as they mentioned, it prevented setting dangerous precedents.
Had they gone to court, they would have won; but the government would have held it up for as long as it took for them to go broke. No one has as much money to waste as the Bush administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shelleehale
Don't you see how much easier it is for the DOJ and AG's to go up against these Companies now that they are not as wealthy as they used to be and across boarders with the new alliances they are not as limited as before.
|
There's no trend here. The industry trend-wise is consolidating, big companies getting bigger and richer, in effect becoming defense funds against specious prosecutions from agencies such as the DoJ.
Most officers and policy drivers, judges & prosecutors, defense lawyers and the like, have little or no inkling of internet technology or methodology. It's little surprise that in wanting to prosecute those responsible for spam, they overshot the actual guilty parties and attacked the holding company for the program the affiliates were trying to promote.
But basically there's nowhere any indication of what you claimed as a threat to the liberty and potential incarceration (or waterboarding) of TopBucks affiliates.