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

Re: [Czechlist] CHAT: Some summary on spam

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 5 , Jun 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 5 , Jun 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > 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.