1996-09-09 - RE: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
To: Will rodger <rodger@interramp.com>
Message Hash: ce454af727d61de3de7283ea6ccc77e8ea87bf831db34dc7ed1ede68cd15bd37
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960908215200.17359E-100000@eff.org>
Reply To: <199609090152.VAA12651@interramp.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-09 07:13:41 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:13:41 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:13:41 +0800
To: Will rodger <rodger@interramp.com>
Subject: RE: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
In-Reply-To: <199609090152.VAA12651@interramp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960908215200.17359E-100000@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Thanks, Will, for the clarification. I agree that this will be a *very* 
interesting case and a lot of fun to watch. :)

I should clarify one thing I said earlier in which I mentioned the court's
"opinion." That seems to imply something lengthy. In fact, it was not. The
order was a one-page TRO. 

-Declan



On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Will rodger wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Declan, in reply to questions about Cyber Promo's statue re: AOL wisely wrote:
> 
> 	>>No. A customer buys service from AOL and in doing so signs a contract
> 	>>with the company. AOL and the customer each has certain rights and
> 	>>obligations spelled out in the contract.
> 	>>
> 	>>I confess I don't know if AOL's contract allows them to block spam. But
> 	>>in any case, spammers are not customers.
> 	>>
> 	>>-Declan
> 	>>
> 
> Cyber Promotions of course is not now a client of AOL, which is one the company's defenses against AOL. Although AOL attorneys don't make the connection outright, their filings seem to imply that once one is an AOL customer, he's always subject to their rules. Wallace, it seems, had an account or two with AOL and was spamming during that time in violation of terms of service. They soon bumped him from the service.
> 
> Now that he's not a subscriber, they claim Wallace is still violating terms of service. How that's relevant to a former subscriber is far from clear. Wallace's attorneys, of course say it isn't relevant at all.
> 
> No doubt about it; this one is going to be a lot of fun.
> 
> Will Rodger
> Washington Bureau Chief
> Inter@ctive Week
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.9
> 
> iQEVAgUBMjN30UcByjT5n+LZAQEO0QgAhKgbD1ljZfDoZR/J9PF9wQFgZxoSM8DZ
> SfhfPMNDnBDqx1dq2qjxbxKC0uqP5AQq76ZPr+MVexvdI9ec+8W9DFW/O8ujOsJT
> yU/vg0XnWC3kNeQVW9OpTjlNZrlm37TRM5Fl/JeBxrFlws1aS1fG57Xnq2YYEJJ2
> hrn20q9szJiRLnFJ0hSfjhsYkLir7qErhqMMOu0kw1HAqfA7kAzmoxD4ukaeqqL9
> Hkqqf2E59xtOSvmMRtqgtGhUijiMeuO1K/wCITp0SS6U4XieeHrV5jpfY3RU6c2s
> g7OBHkMq6fjzWO29WJO67imOeb45bsZMM3vvqKlH5lxXHR+g1DjUnw==
> =Iatg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //








Thread