Re: 2822 Header Analysis [Re: The pretty name]
Mark Shewmaker <mark <at> primefactor.com>
2004-10-01 10:21:53 GMT
On Fri, 2004-10-01 at 04:58, Hector Santos wrote:
> From: "Mark Shewmaker" <mark <at> primefactor.com>
> CANSPAM, there was nothing within the Federal Laws and guidelines that give
> Direct Marketers the privy to do business using user-vendor contracts.
I'm sorry. I don't see where CANSPAM caused marketers to gain any
rights they didn't already have, (excepting the fact that it pre-empted
state anti-spam laws.)
As far as I can tell, it merely made certain actions illegal. I don't
see how it actually legitimized anything, or caused senders to be able
to have any additional privileges that they didn't already have.
> Why do you think the Direct Marketers quickly endorsed the bill? It gives
> them the right to do business, and if you going to break what could be
> considered a Legal transaction, you better have a good reason for doing so
> because they now have legal grounds to stand on.
I had always assumed that the direct marketers liked the fact that it
*looked* like their shoddy business practices gained some legitimacy
from the act. I never saw where they actually did gain any new actual
legal legitimacy at all, even though they did gain the
marketing-lie-type appearance of such.
(I also figured they wanted some sort of weak bill to pass, to ease
pressure and attention away from having a stronger bill go through. And
of course they didn't object to the serious flaws in it that aren't
important to them.)