Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

CHAT: Some summary on spam

Expand Messages
  • kzgafas
    So I have done some direct marketing again (sending updated CV, etc, routine things), and I realized: strictly viewed, this is a prohibited activity according
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
      So I have done some direct marketing again (sending updated CV, etc,
      routine things), and I realized: strictly viewed, this is a prohibited
      activity according to new anti-spam laws. So what has been
      accomplished? Direct e-mail marketing is prohibitied, while the real
      spam has been growing and growing.

      K.
    • James Kirchner
      It s the same as gun control laws in the US. Honest, law-abiding people who wish to follow the rules are more restricted, while the criminals find ways to
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
        It's the same as gun control laws in the US. Honest, law-abiding
        people who wish to follow the rules are more restricted, while the
        criminals find ways to operate, almost without impunity.

        The trouble with anti-spam laws, as well as Internet anti-pornography
        laws, is that most of the offenders move their operations to
        countries with lax laws, where they cannot be prosecuted. I have
        heard through reliable sources that most spamming is now done from
        Russia, where US, UK and Czech authorities cannot reach them. Some
        spamming is done from the Caribbean.

        I wonder if this argument would stand up in court: The recipients of
        your advertising have made public the fact that they are consumers of
        translation services. This (so my argument goes) constitutes
        implicit consent to receive occasional unsolicited but judiciously
        targeted e-mail communications from *legitimate* providers of such
        services. Under the circumstances, such occasional, properly
        targeted advertising does not constitute spam, but something more
        like an employment application.

        The argument would certainly work with any rational bureaucrat or
        judge who is aware of how established your business is, the nature of
        your e-mails and the types of companies you've sent your
        communications to. Maybe you'll be the test case.

        Jamie

        On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:10 AM, kzgafas wrote:

        > So I have done some direct marketing again (sending updated CV, etc,
        > routine things), and I realized: strictly viewed, this is a prohibited
        > activity according to new anti-spam laws. So what has been
        > accomplished? Direct e-mail marketing is prohibitied, while the real
        > spam has been growing and growing.
        >
        > K.
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Martin Janda
        Well, we Czechs say, If there is no plaintiff, there is no judge either. Meaning that a lot of ordinary people will get fuming over the 1000th Viagra email in
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
          Well, we Czechs say, If there is no plaintiff, there is no judge either.
          Meaning that a lot of ordinary people will get fuming over the 1000th
          Viagra email in their mailbox, but very few if any LSPs (translation
          agencies) would ever complain of receiving a services offer from a
          freelancer.... So, Kosta, I take your query as an invitation to a nice
          chat, rather than a serious query, right? :-)

          Martin



          James Kirchner napsal(a):
          > It's the same as gun control laws in the US. Honest, law-abiding
          > people who wish to follow the rules are more restricted, while the
          > criminals find ways to operate, almost without impunity.
          >
          > The trouble with anti-spam laws, as well as Internet anti-pornography
          > laws, is that most of the offenders move their operations to
          > countries with lax laws, where they cannot be prosecuted. I have
          > heard through reliable sources that most spamming is now done from
          > Russia, where US, UK and Czech authorities cannot reach them. Some
          > spamming is done from the Caribbean.
          >
          > I wonder if this argument would stand up in court: The recipients of
          > your advertising have made public the fact that they are consumers of
          > translation services. This (so my argument goes) constitutes
          > implicit consent to receive occasional unsolicited but judiciously
          > targeted e-mail communications from *legitimate* providers of such
          > services. Under the circumstances, such occasional, properly
          > targeted advertising does not constitute spam, but something more
          > like an employment application.
          >
          > The argument would certainly work with any rational bureaucrat or
          > judge who is aware of how established your business is, the nature of
          > your e-mails and the types of companies you've sent your
          > communications to. Maybe you'll be the test case.
          >
          > Jamie
          >
          > On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:10 AM, kzgafas wrote:
          >
          >
          >> So I have done some direct marketing again (sending updated CV, etc,
          >> routine things), and I realized: strictly viewed, this is a prohibited
          >> activity according to new anti-spam laws. So what has been
          >> accomplished? Direct e-mail marketing is prohibitied, while the real
          >> spam has been growing and growing.
          >>
          >> K.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > Anglicke krouzky:
          > http://zehrovak.googlepages.com/circles
          >
          > Lokativ - terminologicky slovnik:
          > http://www.lokativ.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • kzgafas
          Yes, but I meant rather that direct e-mail marketing in general is very seriously hurt by anti-spam laws. Bill Gates once made a proposal how to get rid of
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
            Yes, but I meant rather that direct e-mail marketing in general is
            very seriously hurt by anti-spam laws.

            Bill Gates once made a proposal how to get rid of spam: to impose a
            small fee on each e-mail message. I believe this would be an
            excellent solution to eliminate spam and allow direct marketing
            offering an added value to stay.

            K.


            --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, James Kirchner <jpklists@...> wrote:
            >
            > It's the same as gun control laws in the US. Honest, law-abiding
            > people who wish to follow the rules are more restricted, while the
            > criminals find ways to operate, almost without impunity.
            >
            > The trouble with anti-spam laws, as well as Internet anti-
            pornography
            > laws, is that most of the offenders move their operations to
            > countries with lax laws, where they cannot be prosecuted. I have
            > heard through reliable sources that most spamming is now done from
            > Russia, where US, UK and Czech authorities cannot reach them.
            Some
            > spamming is done from the Caribbean.
            >
            > I wonder if this argument would stand up in court: The recipients
            of
            > your advertising have made public the fact that they are consumers
            of
            > translation services. This (so my argument goes) constitutes
            > implicit consent to receive occasional unsolicited but judiciously
            > targeted e-mail communications from *legitimate* providers of such
            > services. Under the circumstances, such occasional, properly
            > targeted advertising does not constitute spam, but something more
            > like an employment application.
            >
            > The argument would certainly work with any rational bureaucrat or
            > judge who is aware of how established your business is, the nature
            of
            > your e-mails and the types of companies you've sent your
            > communications to. Maybe you'll be the test case.
            >
            > Jamie
            >
            > On Jun 3, 2007, at 10:10 AM, kzgafas wrote:
            >
            > > So I have done some direct marketing again (sending updated CV,
            etc,
            > > routine things), and I realized: strictly viewed, this is a
            prohibited
            > > activity according to new anti-spam laws. So what has been
            > > accomplished? Direct e-mail marketing is prohibitied, while the
            real
            > > spam has been growing and growing.
            > >
            > > K.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • Josef Hlavac
            ... Sometimes it is very clear: the agencies often state on their respective webistes something like Freelancers interested in cooperating with us, e-mail
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 4, 2007
              > I wonder if this argument would stand up in court: The recipients of
              > your advertising have made public the fact that they are consumers of
              > translation services [...]

              Sometimes it is very clear: the agencies often state on their respective
              webistes something like "Freelancers interested in cooperating with us,
              e-mail your CV to xxx@yyy."

              > communications to. Maybe you'll be the test case.

              Well... unlike in the US, the Czech judicial system does not honor
              precedents. It is not unheard of for two almost identical cases to get
              decided with a completely opposite ruling.

              Josef
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.