U.S. lawsuits seek $2.2 trillion over "junk" faxes

Yahoo News ^ | 8/22/02 | Andrew Quinn

[martin_fierro]

Junk Faxers occupy the same circle of hell as SPAMers.

[martin_fierro]

The $2.2 trillion damages demand doesn't appear to be just dreamed up by a greedy plaintiffs' lawyer, either.

Federal law allows at least $500 for each offending FAX transmission. Those can really add up over time.

[NetValue]

These financial faxes arrive every day....they drive me nuts. The senders have different names but the content all looks like it is done by the same people.Where do I sign up to get in on the lawsuit?

[Dubya]

Me too.I would like to get on that deal. I think I will start saving all the junk faxes I get and maybe get in on one of these lawsuits.

[Centurion2000]

"The right to free speech stops at the entrance to my house. You are not allowed to invade my privacy and to use my resources to send your message," said Steve Kirsch, a long-time Internet entrepreneur and philanthropist who announced the lawsuits on Thursday.

Then don't hook a telecommunications device into a public telephone network.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...saying millions of "junk faxes" are clogging the nation's fax machines, jamming communications and possibly endangering lives...

Killer paper cuts!

[Naspino]

Outlaw all spam; punishable by death! 2.2 trillion is a bit extreme though; I would expect that to hurt their case.

[Michael Barnes]

I don't know where you live, but there is nothing "public" about my telephone service. I pay to have me devices connected. That kinda makes it private in my book.

[Centurion2000]

I don't know where you live, but there is nothing "public" about my telephone service

PErsonally I agree with people about the fact that spam is pretty annoying, but bear in mind that your telephone is analagous to a mailbox. You get shopping flyers right ? It's just another minor annoyance that has to be tolerated.

[Poohbah]

PErsonally I agree with people about the fact that spam is pretty annoying, but bear in mind that your telephone is analagous to a mailbox. You get shopping flyers right ? It's just another minor annoyance that has to be tolerated.

The analogy breaks down here, because I'm not being forced to pay for printing up the shopping flyers in the mailbox.

[Centurion2000]

Ok, so there is a point about that ... but 2.2 trillion dollars for a lawsuit ? Isn't that a little over the top ?

[Brookhaven]

PErsonally I agree with people about the fact that spam is pretty annoying, but bear in mind that your telephone is analagous to a mailbox. You get shopping flyers right ? It's just another minor annoyance that has to be tolerated.

You are missing the main difference between a mailbox and telephone, e-mail, and fax.

With a mailbox

• the person sending the message has to pay for its delivery. There is no cost inclured by the person receiveing the message.
• A mailbox can not be "tied up". Receiving an advertisement in your mailbox doesn't prevent you from receiving other things in your mailbox at the same time.
• Your mailbox service is a "free" service. You don't pay a monthly fee to have a mailbox.

With telephone, fax, & e-mail

• The person receiving the advertisement incurs a cost. Paper, connection time, etc...
• Advertisements make the telephone, fax, and computer unavailable for others uses. If an ad is tieing up your fax machine when a legitimate fax comes in, you will not receive it (or your reception will be delayed) because your fax has been taken over by an advertisement. Same with the telephone.

  E-mail mailboxes have a size limit. Ads take up your e-mail space allotment on the e-mail server. Making it more likely that a legitimate message will not be delivered because your mailbox is full. The same is true for cell phone mailboxes and answering machines, they all have a limited message capacity.

• Telephones, fax, and e-mail are not "free" services. You pay a monthly fee for the service. Since you pay for the service, the decision of who may or may not use the service you are paying for is yours.

[Freemeorkillme]

Providing I have the numbers correct, $2,200,000,000,000/$500=4,400,000,000 junk faxes. That's bookoo dollars in telephony services, equipment depreciation, and untold lost opportunities. 4.4bil in junk faxes.

I do think the suit has merit, but, as someone observed earlier, Cox would probably go bankrupt/file for bankruptcy far in advance of the issuance of a judgement against Fax.com/Cox Comm.

Would it be too extreme to make the following analogy? Let's say that all of a sudden the 911 ,411, local and state police departments, fire departments, etc.. telephony systems became fair game for automated telemarketing-related calls. It would cause quite a dangerous environment, would it not? What do you think?

[Freemeorkillme]

I did notice that Kirsch and gang are actually seeking $1500 per fax, $1000 higher than the Cali $500 minimum per fax. That may be a bit over the top.

Kirsch, who founded Infoseek Corp. before it was acquired by Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - News), and now heads Propel Software Corp., has launched a Web site, www.junkfax.org, to tell people how to get off fax marketers' lists.

To the Winbloze users out there: Has anyone tried the Propel Accelerator for DUNs yet? I think it's rather good and at the price they want per month for it, affordable for those without broadband access. The trial version does leave some nasty little reg entries(as does most 'dose software) after uninstalling the program, so be on the look out after removal.

[jpl]

It's just another minor annoyance that has to be tolerated.

I respectfully disagree. If I personally call you up at your house and start bugging you, and you tell me not to call you back, and I continue to call you back, that is harrassment, and that is a crime.

It's time to apply the same rule to these businesses that we already apply to individual people.

[steve-b]

Problem is the dollar amount is so high that the company would go bankrupt long beforehand.

Why on God's green earth is this a "problem" (well, other than the fact that they would be subjected to bankruptcy law rather than something more deserved, such as shia'ra law).

[steve-b]

Homeowner: The right to free speech stops at my property line. You are not allowed to invade my privacy and to use my resources to send your message.

Graffitist: Then don't put your house on a public street, d00d. [picks up spray can and resumes]

[steve-b]

but 2.2 trillion dollars for a lawsuit? Isn't that a little over the top?

Not at all. The law sets forth a certain monetary penalty per violation; the defendant has (allegedly) sent out a certain number of spam fax spews to a certain number of targets. I know the education system has been going to hell, but people do still understand the concept of "multiplication", right?