Subject: RE: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail

From: Dan Kohn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:39:55 -0700

Furthermore, CAUCE, which is a widely respected anti-spam organization,
"vigorously supports" HR 3113 according to
<http://www.cauce.org/pressreleases/pr-hr3113-1.shtml>.

Although I might prefer for spam to just be outlawed, I am certainly willing
to go to an FCC website to remove my email addresses, and I do not consider
the 30 day waiting period that onerous.

But why not make up your own mind.  The bill is at
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3113:>.

		- dan
--
Daniel Kohn <mailto:[email-masked]>
tel:+1-425-602-6222
http://www.dankohn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Isenberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 2000-06-15 16:04
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: fyi.. House Committee Passes Bill Limiting Spam E-Mail 

At 04:37 PM 6/15/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>yeah, the bill contains language like
>
>"Unsolicited commercial electronic mail can be an important mechanism
>through which businesses advertise and attract customers in the online
>environment."
>
>this bill isn't designed to limit spam; it's designed to make it legal.

         In the interest of providing both sides of the story, it should be 
noted that the bill also contains language like:

         "The receipt of unsolicited commercial electronic mail may result 
in costs to recipients who cannot refuse to accept such mail and who incur 
costs for the storage of such mail, or for the time spent accessing, 
reviewing, and discarding such mail, or for both."

and

         "Unsolicited commercial electronic mail may impose significant 
monetary costs on interactive computer services, businesses, and 
educational and nonprofit institutions that carry and receive such mail, as 
there is a finite volume of mail that such providers, businesses, and 
institutions can handle without further investment. The sending of such 
mail is increasingly and negatively affecting the quality of service 
provided to customers of interactive computer service, and shifting costs 
from the sender of the advertisement to the interactive computer service."

         I've yet to read the whole bill (H.R. 3113), but I suspect (or, at 
least, hope) that the politicians behind this legislation are intending to 
draft a federal law that, unlike at least two state attempts, will survive 
a constitutional challenge.

=======================
Douglas M. Isenberg
Attorney @ Law
Editor & Publisher, GigaLaw.com
=======================
GigaLaw.com: "Legal Information for
Internet and Technology Professionals"
http://www.GigaLaw.com
=======================

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:39:10 -0400

> <http://www.cauce.org/pressreleases/pr-hr3113-1.shtml>.

my understanding is that CAUCE has been in cahoots with the DMA for quite
a while.  so whatever they respect that might once have had is now dubious.
 
> the 30 day waiting period that onerous.

I don't believe for a nanosecond that an opt-out list is going to work.
It doesn't work for phone solicitation, it doesn't work for junk snail
mail.  It certainly won't work for a global Internet.

> <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3113:>.

Be sure to read the amended version.  It's better than the original.

Keith