On Thu, 9 Feb 1995 13:58:52 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>I think a class-action suit might be in order.  Perhaps the net could
>sue them for the cost of the disk space taken up by the number of
>spammed copies, times the number of sites on Usenet.  Even if it is
>only a few dollars per site the total amount could be substantial.
>
>How do we get something like this started?
 
On Thu, 9 Feb 1995 14:17:41 -0500,  Dorian Rysling Kim wrote:
>Well, this is all nice, but who's going to pay the lawyers' fees? C & S
>are rude, obnoxious pains, but we are sort of like the last of the
>Romans.. we don't have money to pay for our defense and soon we'll be
>beseiged by the barbarians. Oh wait.. Romans fell because they didn't
>want to pay for her defense.. Hmmm...
 
Almost a perfect case for a contingency fee lawyer isn't it?  Well defined
class, that can be readily contacted.  First send bills for the cost of
carrying the unauthorized commercial traffic, then sue to collect (and
perhaps for invastion of privacy as well).  I'm not sure that the legal
situation is so murky; it rather depends on what the terms of service
agreement that sell.com has with psi.com says, doesn't it (willful
violation of contract would probably not be a good basis for defense
against a claim of actual damages)?  I'd think it would be possible to win
a judgment for a few million--and a fee of 1/3 of that wouldn't be half
bad.  The problem is the C&S might be a tad difficult to collect anything
from (no doubt they've considered the possiblility).
 
I have a Congressional Representative with an email address.  I've sent a
request that spamming be added to automated telemarketing and unsolicited
faxes as unlawful advertising practices.
 
/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice
   Professor of Marketing                          (203) 486-5246 fax