Misunderstanding The New Spam Law And Spammers
from the let's-try-that-again... dept
There are plenty of reasons to think that the new CAN-SPAM law that was signed this week is terrible. We've been pointing a number of reasons why this law is likely to make things worse, not better. However, reading the following article, by someone who is apparently an "analyst" makes me wonder about the writer's analytical skills. He suggests that the law is bad, because spam is good. He says that occasionally, you get something good in the spam, and this law will stop people from getting things they might want. Except, apparently, this analyst hasn't read the law, because it actually allows spamming. The only thing it forbids is using false headers to spam. Anyway, if you wanted to know who buys from spam, apparently, it's this guy - because, occasionally, he sees something worthwhile in the spam he gets. Second, this guy claims that spammers don't want to spam people who don't want their spam, and would be happy with a smaller list of interested parties. That's been proven wrong time and time again. Spammers, these days, are making money based on the size of their lists - which they sell to others. Therefore, they do want more names. These aren't sophisticated marketers we're talking about who understand why targeted marketing makes more sense than untargeted blasting. What they do understand is that when selling their email lists or their ability to spam, the bigger numbers they can show, the more money they believe they'll make.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Lets jus say I would have a word or two to bombard his eyesockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's say the obvious thing about the new law:
It's really a "can spam for now" law. Probably no more than three months.
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's say the obvious thing about the new law:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAN_SPAM
I dare anyone to send out one million messages per day that is 100% honest.
The law will work, stop looking at the 1% that is useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CAN_SPAM
(1) Spammers will obey this law.
(2) You won't get a ton of new "legit" spam from marketers.
I think both assumptions are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]