| 1 |
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 12:09 am, Phill MV wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, it's just weird. What if said person is engaging in harassment? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
That's a separate can of worms altogether. First you'd have to prove to the |
| 5 |
court that you are actually getting harrassed. A statement like the one |
| 6 |
automagically appended would have nothing to do with that situation. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Is it |
| 9 |
> then illegal to go about spam if they include the little disclaimer? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, I think that's different as well. The spammers want you to share the |
| 12 |
spam with your friends/family/coworkers as they want the clicks/sales. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
A statement like the one that was on the OPs email would suggest that sort of |
| 15 |
thing was not wanted... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> It |
| 18 |
> doesn't make sense to me :P but oh well. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Me either. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to the law, but I've been |
| 21 |
known to crack open a few books when necessary. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Basically it's a CYA move by the companies to allow for litigation should one |
| 24 |
of their employees let something slip... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> That's a different case. IIRC the guy who leaked the info on the iPod |
| 27 |
> shuffle/Mac mini broke an NDA he signed with Apple - which is then |
| 28 |
> perfectly legal. Trade secrets and the like, I suppose. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
But I think had that been an internal apple employee that sent it to an |
| 31 |
individual without an NDA, just a buddy he wanted to give a heads up to, and |
| 32 |
that buddy posted it on the net, the court may look at the wording of the |
| 33 |
blurb and apply a similar ruling. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Then again, the whole thing might get thrown out by the court, but by that |
| 36 |
time you're bankrupt because you try to stand up for yourself. |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives