[GTER] Marketing direto entra no combate ao spam
elp em agestado.com.br
elp em agestado.com.br
Terça Fevereiro 25 17:49:00 BRT 2003
Segue o Link e a materia, pois este site eh fechado.
Direct Marketers Join Fight
Against Surging Tide of Spam
( The Wall Street Journal Online, 25/02/2003)
Powerful Trade Group Supports Laws
To Limit Flow of Unsolicited E-Mail
By MYLENE MANGALINDAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The battle against spam, or unsolicited commercial e-mail, is getting a
surprising new supporter: the direct-marketing industry.
The surging tide of spam has forced conventional junk-mailers to throw
their weight behind the idea of federal legislation to stem the flow. The
Direct Marketing Association, a trade group for marketers who sell directly
to consumers, wants to push for federal legislation restricting spam this
year or during the congressional session ending in 2004.
The move makes federal legislation more likely since the Direct Marketing
Association, a powerful lobbying group, had previously opposed federal laws
or regulation of any kind. The group now says federal law should track its
voluntary guidelines, which currently urge marketers to ensure that
recipients have a way to remove their names from e-mail lists. In addition,
the DMA plans to suggest that marketers who violate the law pay stiff
penalties of $11,000 per violation, or piece of spam sent.
Some consumer advocates, who argue that there ought to be an outright ban
on unsolicited commercial e-mail, suspect that the group is trying to water
down any legislation. Some other big names in the e-mail world have already
thrown their support behind strong legislation. Last week, AOL Time Warner
Inc.'s America Online said it would push for legislation to resolve the
spam problem. And Microsoft Corp. earlier this month also advocated strong
'Volume Is So Great'
The Direct Marketing Association, which previously advocated
self-regulation, says there now is so much spam it is impossible for its
members to be heard. "The volume is so great that we have to have some sort
of government intervention," says Jerry Cerasale, the DMA's senior vice
president of government affairs. The group wants legitimate marketers to be
able to continue using e-mail.
Spam now comprises 41% of all Internet e-mail, according to Brightmail, a
software company that blocks spam and is cited by federal agencies and
congressional representatives. The flood costs U.S. corporations $8.9
billion each year and accounts for $4 billion in lost productivity,
according to a January 2003 report by market research firm Ferris Research.
In the absence of a federal law, a number of states are trying to tackle
the problem on their own. A New York court ruled last month, for example,
that a former marketing company called MonsterHut violated state
consumer-fraud laws by claiming inaccurately it received consumers'
permission to send them e-mail ads. America Online won a judgment of about
$7 million last year under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act against a
spammer for overburdening its systems with deceptive, unsolicited e-mail.
California State Sen. Debra Bowen, who authored one of her state's first
laws regarding spam in 1998, has now proposed a measure that would ban spam
unless the recipient has agreed to receive the e-mail ad or has an existing
business relationship with the sender. Under the proposal, consumers would
be able to sue violators for $500 per spam.
Ms. Bowen says current law "doesn't work" because it relies on district
attorneys, who have other priorities, to prosecute spammers. Also, the
previous law's "unsubscribe" provision, which lets marketers send e-mail as
long as they allow the recipient to request their name be removed from the
mailing list, hasn't cut the volume of spam, she says.
Another approach is a "do not e-mail" list, similar to telemarketing "do
not call" lists that ban marketers from contacting people with whom they
have no prior business relationship. Missouri and Colorado have proposed
such lists to block spam. On a national level, Democratic U.S. Sen. Charles
Schumer of New York, who is beginning to draft antispam legislation, is
considering this concept, according to people familiar with the situation.
In seeking federal adoption of its proposals -- some of which are already
in existing state laws -- the DMA acknowledges that it is partly trying to
prevent a crazy-quilt of regulations attempting to limit a global medium.
In the meantime, the association is also considering other initiatives to
crack down on junk e-mail. It has expressed willingness to help
law-enforcement agencies, including international agencies, identify and
prosecute spammers who make fraudulent offers. It is talking about giving
its stamp of approval to marketers who follow certain guidelines and pay a
fee of $500 or $1,000.
But some antispam advocates say only an outright ban will have much effect.
Many laws are vague about enforcement, they say, leaving overworked state
attorneys general to prosecute the offenders. Some argue that "do not
e-mail" lists also won't work because they lack any incentive for spammers
to check the lists.
Transferring Cost to Sender
The cost of sending e-mail is so minuscule that any legislation will be
useless unless it transfers some cost to the sender, says Ray
Everett-Church, a founder of the consumer group Coalition Against
Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. Now, recipients of spam, such as
Internet-access companies, corporations and individuals bear the cost
because they pay for the Internet service.
David Sorkin, a law professor who tracks spam legislation at the John
Marshall Law School in Chicago, and Mr. Everett-Church question the
effectiveness of the DMA's efforts so far. For one thing, the group
represents established marketers such as catalog retailers. Most hard-core
spammers -- who send come-ons for herbal supplements, enlarged body parts
and low mortgage rates -- don't belong to the organization.
"Companies that are doing unsolicited marketing are typically not DMA
members and are usually not advertising products and services that are
legitimate or legal," said Mr. Everett-Church. "So the proposal for a
minimal threshold for the legitimacy of spam will not help the average
consumer in terms of the kind of spam or volume they receive."
The DMA's Mr. Cerasale acknowledges that his organization doesn't have any
hold over spammers who aren't members. He says the organization, however,
may offer some assistance to law enforcement in tracking down people
The Direct Marketing Association supports federal legislation that would
track its guidelines, which say members may send commercial solicitations
under the following circumstances:
1. The solicitations are sent to the marketers' own customers, or
2. Individuals have given their affirmative consent to the marketer to
receive solicitations online, or
3. Individuals didn't opt out after the marketer has given notice of the
opportunity to opt out from solicitations online, or
4. The marketer has received assurances from the third-party list provider
that the individuals whose e-mail addresses appear on that list
A. Have already provided affirmative consent to receive solicitations
B. Have already received notice of the opportunity to have their e-mail
addresses removed and haven't opted out.
Rodrigues" To: <gter em eng.registro.br>
<giordani em infoguer cc:
ra.com.br> Subject: Re: [GTER] Marketing direto entra no
Sent by: combate ao spam
gter-admin em eng.reg
02/25/03 04:25 PM
Please respond to
Olá Eduardo. Poderia passar o link desta notícia, por favor?
----- Original Message -----
From: <elp em agestado.com.br>
To: <gter em eng.registro.br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:48 PM
Subject: [GTER] Marketing direto entra no combate ao spam
Pessoal, vejam a perola que saiu no Wall Street Journal Online ...
Marketing direto entra no combate ao spam
GTER list http://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
More information about the gter