Message Hash: 272dab77318b5ddcabec6f2226060376179e14377e6e10b1102afe360a1ed637
Message ID: <97Jun14.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply To: <199706141643.MAA001.email@example.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-14 19:15:40 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 03:15:40 +0800
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 03:15:40 +0800 To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM Subject: Re: This is NOT trespassing. In-Reply-To: <199706141643.MAA001.email@example.com> Message-ID: <97Jun14.firstname.lastname@example.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 cypherpunks@Algebra.COM wrote: (curiously the author gave the above return address, but since it is more or less on-topic) > Did you pay for your TV? Do you buy electricity by the KWH? > Pay a monthly cable bill? If so, then why isn't a television > commercial considered theft of your televised resources? I can choose to pay extra for commercial-free channels. The commercials are added by the broadcasters, and I can choose which broadcasters I watch. I can also rent commercial free videotapes. Don't confuse paying for a Media Player with payment for (or commercial subsidy of) Media. > Doesn't it cost something to ride the bus? Then why aren't > the public transport's advertisers guilty of stealing your > wallspace? The PTA is stealing my money since I don't ride the bus, but I am forced to pay taxes to support it. I would be willing to end the government monopoly on public transportation, and offer both ad-free and ad-bearing jitneys with a price per ride reflective of the difference in cost. > What about newspapers, magazines, radio stations, going to > the movies, driving on any road, almost any PAID activity in > life? Each has its attendent advertisments and commercials. Again, my newspaper or magazine is free to offer an ad-free version at a different price. I subscribe to several newsletters which are completely without advertisement. Again, it is my choice. You forgot to mention books. I didn't notice any ads between the pages of the last three I read - something must be wrong or left unexploited. > We PAY for an enormous percentage of solicitations. Everyday. No, Media suppliers make decisions whether to sell pure media, or media with ads, and it is their strategy to maximize profit. I "pay" for the ads by not paying extra for the media. Advertisements in public spaces are a form of speech. It does not invade my space (though here billboards are taxed) - I go into a space where speech occurs, it doesn't invade my space. > WHY SHOULD YOUR EMAIL BOX BE ANY DIFFERENT? Because I am not contracting with anyone for a reduced cost for an email box with advertisements (FYI there are services with email addresses for "free" that also tack on ads to messages). My email box is not part of the public space, merely connected to it. I don't object to web pages with ads (closer to the above examples) - it is the author's choice whether or not to have ads, and my choice whether or not to go to the web page. (I would object to pages constructed so as to display only an ad first, then redirect me to the actual content I requested). Why should AIR be different? Why should I not be able to drive a car that belches toxic fumes, and build a plant that pollutes the air - it is just as much my "public" air, as it is yours, and you will have to pay for my activities with only a little of your health. The Spammer is not part of the transaction between me and my ISP, but pollutes my space with something I don't want. You are not part of the transaction between the automaker and myself, nor between me and the customers of my plant, so why should you have a say even though my polluted air would invade your space? Close your door and buy a HEPA filter if you don't like it. It is the same type of problem (an externality in economic terms). > Fact is, it isn't. Nor will it ever be. When you make any > contact in public via any media or communication form, there > will come invitations, solicitations, possibly vexations and > the like. It's one of the prices we must pay in order to be > able to communicate at all. I don't think there should be a law, but if I have have a property right in my email account, but enforcement is difficult or spotty, I can attempt to initiate a boycott of the ISP and NSP as I might do with a socially irresponsible company which endangers me by polluting the air. If I don't have such a right, then neither does the email accounts of the ISP and NSP of the spammer, and they can decide whether or not to supply network services to the spammers and live with the problems the counterspamming will create for them, just as I have to live with the spam. As a specific example: If AGIS fails to control cyberpromo (for now they seem to be succeeding), then if everyone forwards spam to email@example.com (the email scanners work both ways), at some point it will cost more to agis to deflect the counterspam (and complaints on their toll-free lines) than the money it gets from cyberpromo, and other customers using AGIS could be encouraged to drop them and choose a more "responsible" carrier, or agis can be deleted from routing tables. They will either have to insure cyberpromo acts responsibly or stop being their provider. This will not eliminate the problem, but will make it uneconomic in most cases to spam - if the account is almost instantly cancelled, the only response would be a mailing address or phone number, and most people won't call (unless it is toll free), and most people won't print out the form, so the cost of the spam will exceed any profits generated, and thus it will stop. No government need get involved.
Return to June 1997
Return to “firstname.lastname@example.org”