US Code 47
DrG
> In article <4b78fb$6...@nntp3.news.primenet.com>,
> James J. Lippard <lip...@Primenet.Com> wrote:
> >In article <4b77bi$7...@crl3.crl.com>, George Herbert <gher...@crl.com> wrote:
> >>>[....]
> >>> * (a) Definitions
> >>> + (2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment
> >>> which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or
> >>> both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit
> >>>> that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to
> >>>> transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal
> >>>> received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
> >>
> >>This is not Faxnet. This is not UseFax News. This is email, Usenet,
> >>and the Internet. If it's not a fax machine, that section does not apply.
> >>Computers are not intended to print out every message they recieve.
> >
Exactly, ant THAT is one of the reasons why you can ALWAYS publish any
unsolicited e-mail.
> >The definition says "equipment which HAS THE CAPACITY" to do either A
> >or B. It doesn't say "equipment which has the sole function" to do
> >either A or B. There is little doubt that computers were explicitly
> >intended to be included in this definition, since many people use
> >computers to send and receive faxes--faxes need not ever be on paper
> >at either end of the line. Is it your opinion that this statute does
> >not apply to someone sending a commercial message with a computer and
> >fax modem over a telephone line dedicated for fax purposes to a fax
> >server operated on a computer, unless the recipient prints it out?
>
> The statute as written is very explicit. It says "telephone facsimile
> machine", not "Generic data print capability". If you have a printer
> attached and fax software and can print out things as they come in,
> then your computer has the capability as described above relating
> to fax messages. If not, or if the message wasn't a fax message,
> then it's not a fax machine.
>
> The FCC can try this. Given the volume of email spams of late,
> I can see why it might even be a useful thing to prosecute them
> under this section. But it's a bend of the law. The law is
> explicit that it refers to fax machines, not computers and purely
> electronic messages. I dislike bending existing laws like that.
> If we want the ability to prosecute under that section, get Congress
> to fix the law, don't try and redefine fax machine to be anything
> which can recieve or display an electronic message of any type.
>
> -george william herbert
> gher...@crl.com
>
Look, you do NOT need any criminal laws to deal with e-mail spammers.
We can have USENET laws that deal with them, in a very effective and
efficient was.
I have been e-mail spammed before, and I eliminated the spammers ability
to do that to me. Now anybody can do that, and many of us put together can
eliminate all spammers very easily.
We do not NEED or WANT any Criminal Law in CyberSpace!
For information on how to eliminate e-mail and other spammers,
contact the internet management organization at sy...@manus.org
DrG