The point is that no matter who is doing the sending, according to the posters Spam Arrent reserves for themselves the right to charge $2000 for every email, at its discretion. If they decide to charge $2000, there is no appeal. Does that make it clear, now?
Sounds like a moneymaking business to me.
It may be that the people in charge of Spam Arrest are entirely ethical and honest, and will take the utmost care to ensure that none but the most obvious spammer is charged. But businesses can't blindly assume that, since that's not what the contract says, and they could be opening themselves to charges bringing them to insolvency - without any customer having to complain.
Spam Arrest could determine that Amazon or Buy.com sent out UCE and fine them thousands of dollars, on a whim, and their 'contract' makes it perfectly legal and gives no option for appeal. Of course it's more likely they'd do it to smaller companies for more borderline businesses, if they actually were running out of money.
You mention Confirmed Opt-In - but appearently you miss the fact that the original poster does, as well. Spam Arrest goes well beyond requiring confirmed opt-in, to the point of requiring documented opt-in of every individual email message. That's not a problem for gripelog, because no messages ever get sent, but it makes the entire email system rather pointless. Or do you know for certain that isn't the case? If you have a link to their sender terms, I'd like to see it.
It is not unsolicited if someone has been a customer in the past and has never asked to be removed. What's so unethical about a company keeping in touch with customers? It only rises to unethical, unsolicited spam when the messages keep coming after you've indicated your desire to be removed.
(Infoworld is one of the only sites that has had technical problems with removing me from their lists in the past, oddly. Even so, I wouldn't want them fined $2000 every time they sent me a pricey conference invitation.)
[ Parent ]
Bookmark
this page
NEWS 