Quote:
|
Originally Posted by $5 submissions
Unfortunately, that's how courts look at the matter. That's the reasoning behind court decisions allowing junk mail--the cost theory. With physical mail, the mailer assumes the heavy costs. With email, the costs are transferred to the receiving ISP and, in terms of time processing the mail, the recipient. Regardless, in both scenarios the receiver wastes time filtering.
I've always thought spam is more of a technical issue instead of a legal one.
 |
Yeah, it all comes down to money and who's not making any from what and what's costing who what. Junk postal mail costs people who receive it money and very few complain about that. I pay like $50/month for garbage removal, I'm sure it would be a lot less if there was less advertisement paper/brochure waste. Ok, yeah spam costs X, Y and Z money but it's just an outrage that high volume email deployers are classified as common criminals and would be burned at the stake by the masses if they could. Meanwhile, drunk drivers, rapists and other violent offenders get probation.
Antis suck, they go around legally terrorizing people for sport. Greedy, corporate America sucks. Not every spammer is a multi-millionaire, with elaborate international setups like the media sensationalizes these few stories we have heard as of lately. They want to make examples of people, and it's backfiring because people see the money that the media exaggerates and suddenly, everyone wants to spam. "yo, where can I get Dark Mailer?"