California Spam Law: Won't Stop Spam, Will Increase Lawsuits
from the fun-fun-fun dept
I hate spam and would like nothing better than to see an effective anti-spam law put on the books. However, as I've said before, the California anti-spam law is not the right law. Plenty of others seem to agree, and everyone believes that the law won't stand up if tested in court. The problem is what do people do until it's been tested? The other question is who is going to take on this law. Luckily, it won't be the Direct Marketing Association, who I don't trust in the slightest. They say they've burned up all their resources fighting the "Do Not Call" list. At a conference among email marketers, some were suggesting that they should file their own lawsuits under the bill in order to purposely clog the court system with such lawsuits. This seems like typical bad marketing thinking that overburdening a system somehow gets extra attention. The right response is that someone who gets sued for doing something that clearly is not spam is going to have to go to court and get the law overturned. Maybe (and this would be the best) it happens to someone who is not associated with an "email marketing" company, but just someone who sends a perfectly reasonable email and gets hit with a lawsuit.
2 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead
- Newspaper Boss Says Newspapers Need More Money... Because New Media Steals & May 'Destroy Civil Society'
- If The Internet Is Treated Just Like The Offline World, We'd Never Have Ridiculous Laws Like SOPA/PIPA
- Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?
- The Pirate Bay Press Release On SOPA: We Are The New Hollywood





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Holding the responsible party accoutnable.
Cut off the roots, and you kill the plant.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Holding the responsible party accoutnable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment