Subject: Re: [Asrg] Thoughts so far

From: Art Pollard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 11:37:30 -0700

>
>On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Doug Phillips wrote:
>
> > I agree with Kee.  The prospective recovery from suits against spammers is
> > not high enough to make suits worthwhile--not only because the 
> penalties are
> > too low, but also because many individual spammers are judgment proof.  In
> > my view, this is why it would be helpful to have laws that could be 
> enforced
> > against vendors of software that circumvents anti-spam technology.

I disagree.  I believe there is a _ton_ of money out there that somebody 
could make pursuing spammers.

How would it work?  Simple....

Here in Utah, the end user can collect $10 per spam and the ISP another 
$10.  So that is $20 that goes uncollected at this point.  Sure, it isn't 
as much as Washington State's law allows but I believe it is enough to make 
a lot of money.

How would you make money?

The way you make money is to buy the right to collect from the ISP and 
their customers.

So, the ISP receives 1,000 spams from the same spammer.  That is 
potentially $20,000 that is uncollected.  Now, that is worth pursuing.

Here in Utah, you can go to small claims court for values up to 
$5,000.  So, what I believe would be a good way to pursue this is to simply 
take the spammer to small claims court for the maximum value allowed under 
small claims.   Thus the $5,000 could be collected with little or no 
attorney's fees or expenses.  Of course, if you wanted to incur attorney's 
fees then you can go to normal district court and collect more at a time.

If they do not have the money, that is ok. As long as you have a judgement, 
you can put a lein on their house, property and all sorts of nasty things 
so that you will collect in the end.

-Art

-- 
Art Pollard
http://www.lextek.com/
Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Michael Ellis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:28:42 -0500

> as much as Washington State's law allows but I believe it is enough to make

Except that Utah's law was just resounding defeated in its first test in court and
the written judgement makes it difficult to ever collect from sleazy spammer and
impossible from a 'honest' (or at least open) one

--
Michael Ellis
Privacy Manager
Date.com
  Phone   (416) 306-0022 ext 620
  Fax     (416) 306-0023

Date.com - "The New Way To Date"