Re: opt-out registry comments
andre <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.ioz |
|---|---|
| Organization | andre |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Ant Brooks said on Tuesday, August 02, 2011 : > On 2011/08/02 2:29 PM, andre wrote: > > Convinced yet? :) > > No, sorry. I'm not a lawyer, but the little bit of searching > and research I've done leads me to believe that the usual > legal meaning of "theft" does not match your description. > > I agree with Graham that a "noisy neighbour" antisocial > behaviour analogy is more solid basis for an argument that > opt-in legislation is needed for spam. > I only have third year commercial law and ianal but actually no. Because there is a direct financial loss due to the action of the spammer it is very far from just plain antisocial behaviour. Theft may be tricky as theft is a direct crime, but I think it fits. Now fraud will definately fit as it is defined much wider. You can check with that NPA person that you have mentioned to confirm whether theft would fit but an alternate charge of fraud will most certainly succeed... _______________________________________________ IOZ mailing list [email protected] http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz