http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/01/comcast-and-e360-settle-lawsuit/ Email, Delivery, Spam and more Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:06:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/2010/01/comcast-and-e360-settle-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-3730 Joe Wagner Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:44:46 +0000 http://blog.wordtothewise.com/?p=1170#comment-3730 Hi, I just wanted to share that there is good strong legal precedent that such spammer behavior is illegal, in the recent 9th Circuit opinion of USA v. Kilbride, (9th Cir., Nov. 11 2009). http://www.spamsuite.com/node/507 It has many good, common sense rulings throwing back a lot of the hand waving and smoke that spam defendants have tried using, with unfortunately some success, in lower court rooms. Highlights include: "Defendants also argue that the definition of “material falsification” renders § 1037 unconstitutionally vague specifically as to whether it would criminalize private registration of a domain name. As testified to at trial, private registration is a service that allows registration of a domain name in a manner that conceals the actual registrant’s identity from the public absent a subpoena. We fail to perceive any vagueness on this point. Based on the plain meaning of the relevant terms discussed above, private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant’s identity would constitute “material falsification.”" and "In the headers of their bulk emails, Defendants intentionally replaced the email addresses from which the emails were sent with fictitious addresses. It is quite obvious that this constituted intentionally causing to be different or preventing the disclosure of the actual header information in a manner diminishing the ability of recipients to identify, locate, or respond to Defendants or their agents in violation of § 1037(a)(3). Defendants also intentionally replaced the actual phone and contact person for Ganymede with fictitious infor- mation. [...] Even were this not the case, “impair” clearly is not synonymous with “completely obstruct.” To impair, according to its plain meaning, merely means to decrease. It should have been clear to Defendants that intentionally falsifying the identity of the contact person and phone number for the actual registrant constitutes intentionally decreasing the ability of a recipient to locate and contact the actual registrant, regardless of whether a recipient may still be left some avenue to do so. We therefore conclude Defendants had notice that their conduct violated § 1037." Hi,
I just wanted to share that there is good strong legal precedent that such spammer behavior is illegal, in the recent 9th Circuit opinion of USA v. Kilbride, (9th Cir., Nov. 11 2009).
http://www.spamsuite.com/node/507
It has many good, common sense rulings throwing back a lot of the hand waving and smoke that spam defendants have tried using, with unfortunately some success, in lower court rooms. Highlights include:
“Defendants also argue that the definition of “material falsification” renders § 1037 unconstitutionally vague specifically as to whether it would criminalize private registration of a domain name. As testified to at trial, private registration is a service that allows registration of a domain name in a manner that conceals the actual registrant’s identity from the public absent a subpoena. We fail to perceive any vagueness on this point. Based on the plain meaning of the relevant terms discussed above, private registration for the purpose of concealing the actual registrant’s identity would constitute “material falsification.””
and
“In the headers of their bulk emails, Defendants intentionally replaced the email addresses from which the emails were sent with fictitious addresses. It is quite obvious that this constituted intentionally causing to be different or preventing the disclosure of the actual header information in a manner diminishing the ability of recipients to identify, locate, or respond to Defendants or their agents in violation of § 1037(a)(3). Defendants also intentionally replaced the actual phone and contact person for Ganymede with fictitious infor- mation. [...] Even were this not the case, “impair” clearly is not synonymous with “completely obstruct.” To impair, according to its plain meaning, merely means to decrease. It should have been clear to Defendants that intentionally falsifying the identity of the contact person and phone number for the actual registrant constitutes intentionally decreasing the ability of a recipient to locate and contact the actual registrant, regardless of whether a recipient may still be left some avenue to do so. We therefore conclude Defendants had notice that their conduct violated § 1037.”

]]>