said by CatSnak :

---

Here is a link to the bill as it was introduced:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···ced.html

And here is an analysis of the bill:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···oor.html

And here is the enrolled version:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···led.html

---

quote:

---

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/19/03)

American Civil Liberties Union
American Electronics Association
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
Challenger One
Direct Marketing Association
Internet Alliance

---

said by amenite :

---

said by snkeyes3 :

---

You're missing one key point:
Most of the spammed products are fraudulant or stolen.

For example: The version of Norton Systemworks being sold via SPAM is a PIRATED COPY!! Symantec has no responsibility in this matter, only the Spammer and the Pirate are liable.

---

And that's only one example. The are thousands if not millions of potential scenarios involving perfectly legitimate products passing through normal distribution channels. The issue is not addressed in the article. I'd like to see a draft of the legislation to see exactly what's being proposed here.

---

said by snkeyes3 :

---

You're missing one key point:
Most of the spammed products are fraudulant or stolen.

For example: The version of Norton Systemworks being sold via SPAM is a PIRATED COPY!! Symantec has no responsibility in this matter, only the Spammer and the Pirate are liable.

---

said by Lex Luthor :

---

If someone is spamming Norton Systemworks, for example, I can't image it's going to be Symantec that's going to be liable, it's the company reselling Norton Systemworks that's going to be liable.

I'd guess the law must be written that it's not the company being advertised in the spam is liable, it must be the company that is benefiting from the spam.

[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 10:22:39]

---

quote:

---

The anti-spam legislation targets not only the firms that package and send the unwanted e-mails to consumers, but also the companies whose products and services are being advertised.

---

said by amenite :

---

said by MrJames :

---

Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill.

---

If you look at the entire distribution chain in just about any industry (excluding services), it is clear that producers are not in complete control of distribution. This will be a huge fiasco if lawmakers intend to attempt to penalize manufacturers for the spam of distributors. The law must address this in some manner.

---

said by MrJames :

---

Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill.

---