John
Glube
From
the Frying Pan To The Fire?
by John Glube, © 2004, all rights reserved of Head's Up - A
Copywriter's Journal
Last fall, many e-marketers went bonkers over the California
legislation.
People started breathing a sigh of relief with the passage of
Federal legislation.
Recently, there has been some discussion about the suppression
issue.
If you don't know what I am talking about, you will want to read
"The Guys And Gals In Blue Have Arrived" found at
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html. You may not
agree with my analysis, but you need to be aware of the issues.
For those of you who market into the UK, this is a clear
requirement under the UK rules. Read the "Commissioner's
Guidance" at http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamukg for
the relevant resources.
In the article, Guys and Gals, I reference section 7 of the Act
which you can find here:
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamus.html
I allude to the private right of action given to Internet access
service providers (earlier in the piece setting out the
definition of Internet access service as found in the U.S.
Communications Act of 1934) and then go on to discuss the
potential right of action under California law.
Some time ago, I picked up discussion suggesting the definition
of Internet access service gave a much broader right of action
than people anticipated.
It is interesting to note this issue is now being picked up by
others including the folks at Marketing Sherpa.
What am I getting at?
"The term ''Internet access service'' means a service that
enables users to access content, information, electronic mail,
or other services offered over the Internet, and may also
include access to proprietary content, information, and other
services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
Such term does not include telecommunications services."
(See subsection 11 (3) of the Act and section 231(e)(4) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231(e)(4))
This language is quite broad and may include:
* the IT departments for many large corporations;
* membership sites giving people the right to send e-mail; and,
* firms providing auto-responder and other mailing services.
I write may because more thought is required on the issue.
For those of you who think this whole thing is simply a joke,
don't.
If you don't have a compliance plan - you need to:
* Read and understand the relevant legislation;
* Read the informed commentaries - but remember the commentaries
are just that and - we need to see how some of the greyer areas
will pan out in the regulations - which by the way will
apparently be available for public comment in early March;
* Develop a plan;
* Review it with an informed advisor;
* Carry out the plan; and,
* Monitor developments.
Also, for those of you who live outside of the U.S. and don't
think this act applies to you, the US law, given the definition
of protected computer does have application outside of the
boundaries of the United States.
(To understand what I am talking about, again I reference the
article "The Guys And Gals In Blue Have Arrived" found at
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html.)
I appreciate citizens of other nations don't like this. However,
you will want to familiarize yourself with this site:
http://www.econsumer.gov/
In essence here is how it works:
* A breach of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 is treated as an unfair or
deceptive trade practice; (See section 7 (a) of the Act.)
* Most first world nations have consumer protection laws, which
essentially all say the same thing - no unfair or deceptive
trade practices. True there are differences in the details.
* There is an organization known as the International Consumer
Protection and Enforcement Network. http://www.imsnricc.org/
* A US resident can file a complaint using econsumer.gov and
guess what? The Complaint goes to the US regulatory agencies and
the relevant regulatory agency of the participating nation.
So, if you thought living in Prague, Melbourne, London, Paris,
Rome or Toronto protects you - think again. Why? Because The
Czech Republic, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and
Canada all have consumer protection laws, allowing for
reciprocal enforcement under this arrangement.
Finally, look for some big hits on major players in the near
term that are not onside. Why? There is lots of political
pressure for action by the Commission, this is an election year
and there continues to be lots of noise in the background about
how this law will not work.
If the American consumer does not see measurable results within
a reasonable period of time, there is going to be hell to pay.
Guess what? It won't be the elected officials, who will push for
a Do Not Spam registry, passing the buck to the Commission.
The Commission, while trying to walk around this hot potato,
will ultimately throw the ball back to the e-marketing industry
and the Internet access service providers saying:
"You e-marketers - Mr. and Miss DMA pushed for an opt-out regime
- guess what - she don't work - and you AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo,
Earthlink and the big telecoms wanted to regulate yourselves -
yes siree bob - and how come spammers are still using your
bandwidth?"
And who will the consumer vent their rage on? You guessed it.
This show, she ain't over yet.
(Of course, for marketers who are in compliance this is
just background noise, making for great theatre - hey, pass the
popcorn would you.)
Now for the good news. I want to reiterate. Run an "affirmative
consent" mailing list. Take simple prudent steps any business
would take in dealing with regulatory agencies and you won't
need to have your advisor on "speed dial."
John Glube publishes and edits Head's Up, A Copywriter's
Journal. To receive insightful tips on e-marketing and
regulatory compliance issues subscribe to the Journal and place
your 400 character business ad:
http://www.goldbar.net/go.php?id=4914&c=820&ac=fpfipt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now for the legal and other "stuff":
1. You have a non-exclusive world wide royalty free license to
republish this article in any medium, as long as:
* You do not use it any form of UCE, (which automatically
terminates your license)
* You republish the article in its entirety, byline and resource
box.
According to Busitoolz.com:
Word count 967 words
Line count 159 lines
Including title, by-line, and resource box.
by John Glube, © 2004, all rights reserved of Head's Up - A
Copywriter's Journal
Last fall, many e-marketers went bonkers over the California
legislation.
People started breathing a sigh of relief with the passage of
Federal legislation.
Recently, there has been some discussion about the suppression
issue.
If you don't know what I am talking about, you will want to read
"The Guys And Gals In Blue Have Arrived" found at
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html. You may not
agree with my analysis, but you need to be aware of the issues.
For those of you who market into the UK, this is a clear
requirement under the UK rules. Read the "Commissioner's
Guidance" at http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamukg for
the relevant resources.
In the article, Guys and Gals, I reference section 7 of the Act
which you can find here:
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamus.html
I allude to the private right of action given to Internet access
service providers (earlier in the piece setting out the
definition of Internet access service as found in the U.S.
Communications Act of 1934) and then go on to discuss the
potential right of action under California law.
Some time ago, I picked up discussion suggesting the definition
of Internet access service gave a much broader right of action
than people anticipated.
It is interesting to note this issue is now being picked up by
others including the folks at Marketing Sherpa.
What am I getting at?
"The term ''Internet access service'' means a service that
enables users to access content, information, electronic mail,
or other services offered over the Internet, and may also
include access to proprietary content, information, and other
services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
Such term does not include telecommunications services."
(See subsection 11 (3) of the Act and section 231(e)(4) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231(e)(4))
This language is quite broad and may include:
* the IT departments for many large corporations;
* membership sites giving people the right to send e-mail; and,
* firms providing auto-responder and other mailing services.
I write may because more thought is required on the issue.
For those of you who think this whole thing is simply a joke,
don't.
If you don't have a compliance plan - you need to:
* Read and understand the relevant legislation;
* Read the informed commentaries - but remember the commentaries
are just that and - we need to see how some of the greyer areas
will pan out in the regulations - which by the way will
apparently be available for public comment in early March;
* Develop a plan;
* Review it with an informed advisor;
* Carry out the plan; and,
* Monitor developments.
Also, for those of you who live outside of the U.S. and don't
think this act applies to you, the US law, given the definition
of protected computer does have application outside of the
boundaries of the United States.
(To understand what I am talking about, again I reference the
article "The Guys And Gals In Blue Have Arrived" found at
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/antispamga.html.)
I appreciate citizens of other nations don't like this. However,
you will want to familiarize yourself with this site:
http://www.econsumer.gov/
In essence here is how it works:
* A breach of the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 is treated as an unfair or
deceptive trade practice; (See section 7 (a) of the Act.)
* Most first world nations have consumer protection laws, which
essentially all say the same thing - no unfair or deceptive
trade practices. True there are differences in the details.
* There is an organization known as the International Consumer
Protection and Enforcement Network. http://www.imsnricc.org/
* A US resident can file a complaint using econsumer.gov and
guess what? The Complaint goes to the US regulatory agencies and
the relevant regulatory agency of the participating nation.
So, if you thought living in Prague, Melbourne, London, Paris,
Rome or Toronto protects you - think again. Why? Because The
Czech Republic, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and
Canada all have consumer protection laws, allowing for
reciprocal enforcement under this arrangement.
Finally, look for some big hits on major players in the near
term that are not onside. Why? There is lots of political
pressure for action by the Commission, this is an election year
and there continues to be lots of noise in the background about
how this law will not work.
If the American consumer does not see measurable results within
a reasonable period of time, there is going to be hell to pay.
Guess what? It won't be the elected officials, who will push for
a Do Not Spam registry, passing the buck to the Commission.
The Commission, while trying to walk around this hot potato,
will ultimately throw the ball back to the e-marketing industry
and the Internet access service providers saying:
"You e-marketers - Mr. and Miss DMA pushed for an opt-out regime
- guess what - she don't work - and you AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo,
Earthlink and the big telecoms wanted to regulate yourselves -
yes siree bob - and how come spammers are still using your
bandwidth?"
And who will the consumer vent their rage on? You guessed it.
This show, she ain't over yet.
(Of course, for marketers who are in compliance this is
just background noise, making for great theatre - hey, pass the
popcorn would you.)
Now for the good news. I want to reiterate. Run an "affirmative
consent" mailing list. Take simple prudent steps any business
would take in dealing with regulatory agencies and you won't
need to have your advisor on "speed dial."
John Glube publishes and edits Head's Up, A Copywriter's
Journal. To receive insightful tips on e-marketing and
regulatory compliance issues subscribe to the Journal and place
your 400 character business ad:
http://www.goldbar.net/go.php?id=4914&c=820&ac=fpfipt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, now for the legal and other "stuff":
1. You have a non-exclusive world wide royalty free license to
republish this article in any medium, as long as:
* You do not use it any form of UCE, (which automatically
terminates your license)
* You republish the article in its entirety, byline and resource
box.
According to Busitoolz.com:
Word count 967 words
Line count 159 lines
Including title, by-line, and resource box.