Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    The affiliate formerly known as ojmoo
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,466
    Anyone has any comments on this? I don't spam anyone (and don't live in California) so it has no effect on me, but since we are in the online marketing business, what do the rest of you think?

    Below is a small artical on the new law.
    Mike
    Stallion Shoppe
    Horse themed gifts and collectibles
    ------------------------------------
    Davis Signs California Anti-Spam Bill
    September 24, 2003 (10:57 a.m. EST)
    TechWeb News TechWeb

    California Governor Gray Davis Tuesday signed into law the nation's toughest anti-spam bill, issuing a warning to spammers that “we will not allow you to litter the information superhighway with email trash.”
    The bill prohibits the sending of unrequested commercial e-mail messages to anyone in the state, and further bans the transmission of such messages by California-based companies to out-of-state recipients.

    Violators of the law face fines of $1,000 per individual message, and up to $1 million dollars for specific junk e-mail marketing programs.

  2. #2
    Affiliate Addict Robert484848's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    334
    I think it's great !!!
    I hate
    What I don't like is the Judge in OK that has stoped the national do not call list
    You would think that 50 million Americans would carry more weight than 1 judge.

    "I did'nt get where I'm at today by worrying about how I'm going to feel tomorrow."

  3. #3
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    322
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Robert484848:
    What I don't like is the Judge in OK that has stoped the national do not call list
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    I just read that myself, and I’m really p’d off about it. All I can say is that for the first time in my life, I can’t wait for a telemarketer to call me!

    Jason
    “I get on my knees and pray, we don’t get fooled again!” – Who said that? I said that!

  4. #4
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    305
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ojmoo:

    Davis Signs California Anti-Spam Bill
    September 24, 2003 (10:57 a.m. EST)
    California Governor Gray Davis Tuesday signed into law the nation's toughest anti-spam bill, issuing a warning to spammers that “we will not allow you to litter the information superhighway with email trash.”
    The bill prohibits the sending of unrequested commercial e-mail messages to anyone in the state, and further bans the transmission of such messages by California-based companies to out-of-state recipients.

    Violators of the law face fines of $1,000 per individual message, and up to $1 million dollars for specific junk e-mail marketing programs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Of course, the same schmuck thats being recalled

    Figures!

    two years and counting.... nothing much has changed... commissions stolen daily... billions of impressions served...

  5. #5
    The affiliate formerly known as ojmoo
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,466
    You know that 50 million number is a very interesting number, b/c 50,456,169 voted for Pres Bush in 2000 to make him president (of course citizen Gore received 50,996,116 votes, but that is another story.)

    Mike

  6. #6
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    Personally I don't want the goverment making laws for spam. I'm not in that business but I don't see them having the right to stop free market communication wanted or not.

  7. #7
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    243
    Pesonally, I don't think a law, no matter how harsh, is going to have much effect, as most spam originates from overseas servers.

    I think the only "real" solution will be to start charging for email. An individual user would be granted 500 or so free emails per month from their ISP (or something similar), after which they would be charged $.01 fee per email (or whatever is appropriate). Overhaul the whole system to only allow transmission of "licensed" email, close all open relays, etc.

    Further, force all non-US ISP's to comply with the system or be banned access from US-based email systems.

    What do you think, would that work?

    Erik

    The AllPiercings.com Affiliate Program: 20% LIFETIME Commissions, 5% 2nd Tier Commissions, Affiliate Store Builder, Raw Datafeeds, and Advanced Tools.
    http://www.Allpiercings.com

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,178
    I can tell all of you first hand that we have the stupidist, most ignorant judges in the country here in Oklahoma.

    The fact that 50 million people signed up for the Do Not Call List is clearly evident that they don't want to receive phone calls from telemarketers. To h3ll with what the telemarketing industry wants.

    After all, this isn't like a drive by software download, these people clearly indicated they don't want calls.

    As for California and the new spam law, I say GOOD FOR THEM! Spammers are all scumbags and should be wiped off the face of the Earth!

    GO CALIFORNIA!!!

    And as for Oklahoma judges...

    Andy

    _______________
    <font color="red">Call the Exterminators! We've Got PARASITES!</font>

  9. #9
    ABW Veteran jc101's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    4,597
    cool No

    Jason

    xtremeshopping.org

    aim: ssn jason

    "If someone says can't, that shows you what to do." -- John Cage

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    1,263
    I didn't have time to read into this yet, but I wonder if it has to do w/ the spam company eTracks.com sending thousands upon thousands of pieces of spam to one of the state's largest law firms... I thought there was already a law that applied a hefty fine to each piece, and that was what the law firm was going for... even if they were a very small firm, they'd be wealthy after the dust settled...
    Do a search for eTracks and read about it... I haven't done so recently, but the last I saw was pretty interesting

    [edit]
    here's the results on a search for that particular law suit (mofo v etracks.com):
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...mofo+v+etracks
    [/edit]


    CarSites.us - Free promotion for your automotive-related sites!

    Die Parasites Die!!

    [This message was edited by Celicaphile on September 24, 2003 at 06:20 PM.]

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    84
    This anti-spam law is dumb. Simple as that!

    I own a large newsletter list, but now I'm under the threat of getting sued potentially. The feeling isn't great, specially when you don't spam. Too many ignorant sufers on the net will call my newsletter UCE when it clearly isn't. Two unfounded complaints will have the host boot me probably since they can sue hosts now too (according to this law). Oh ya.. they can even sue the advertisers too! Crazy if you ask me.


    '"The language raises the possibility that marketers could be sued over spam from their affiliates or marketing partners. Affiliate marketing, where online merchants pay a bounty for leads and sales generated by other marketers, is a major source of spam." and more " Marketers who expressly forbid their affiliates from spamming may be protected, but they still might end up in California court if affiliates spam on their behalf, Kramer said."

    "There isn't any clarity on this in the statute, but if you are an advertiser and you have an express prohibition in your referral program on the use of unsolicited commercial e-mail, and nevertheless some third party sends out e-mails containing your advertisement without your authorization ... I think you'd have a good argument that you are not liable under this statute, but you'd end up having to litigate that question," Kramer said. "'

    -- this was taken off another board.

    ---
    Best Regards,
    C. Pavlovski - Owner
    Site: http://www.jokaroo.com
    Email: cpavlovski@jokaroo.com
    ICQ: 20762139

    Make Money NOW! @ http://www.jokedollars.com
    Payments twice a month, with no wait!

  12. #12
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Well it's about time since the networks have been harboring and monitizing spammers since inception. If you have a true OPT-IN list better work out how to keep Calif. e-mails off of it or make damn sure it contains something of real value. Opt-out lists will be history if this Calif. law becomes a model. Amazing the Telemarketers stand to loose 50 Billion on the "do not call" registry and the fax # spammers already have gotten wacked by the FTC.

    DMA membership better learn how to flip burgers and merchant's best suck up to real value add affiliates as their own e-mail cammpaigns, BHO popup buddies are going to be targets and victims in the consumer backlash war against gorrilla marketers. Heck MSM in Europe closed down all their chat services this week due to porn and typical subject spammers and pediphile lurkers.

    Mike & Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  13. #13
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    461
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heyder:
    Personally I don't want the goverment making laws for spam. I'm not in that business but I don't see them having the right to stop free market communication wanted or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I would agree with you if it wasn't for the tons of spam I get. I mean its wayyyy out of control.

    Its outright intrusive.......the government has to do something due to the irresponsible...

    They need to do something about those ip blasters too....

    "The most successful con artist will have you believing he is the most ethical person you will ever know."

  14. #14
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA
    Posts
    866
    That's a tougher one, but California has had a spam law for some time.

    If I'm remembering correctly, the previous spam law was just as tough as far as the fine goes but it said that if you are in California and you send junk mail to someone in California that you have to have your email have certain language in it with a subject line that has the initials ADV: in all caps.

    I read an article about it a while ago and it said since the law was implemented they had only charged one person. If I'm remembering the article correctly, the guy wasn't even a big fish. It was some guy who was trying to sell some type of ebook.

    Since I don't see this required heading on any of the 500 pieces of spam I get a day I can only conclude that either there are no spammers in California (very likely as they are all probably busy running for Governor) or they are all sending their spam to everyone else but Californians or the law has had absolutely no impact. Hmm. Wonder which one it is.

    Kip

  15. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Antispam application on android
    By Nifty Stats in forum Spam
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 9th, 2013, 11:34 AM
  2. Ought To Be A Law Against This
    By Cheesehead in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: February 11th, 2009, 03:29 PM
  3. Domain Name Law Signed
    By Mack in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 05:10 PM
  4. Calif. Enacts Toughest Anti-Spam Bill
    By bitwise in forum Spam
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 4th, 2003, 03:34 PM
  5. Replies: 70
    Last Post: May 6th, 2003, 04:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •