Reading Materials

Introduction / Definitions, Mechanics, and Costs (June 22)

1. Paul Hoffman, Unsolicited Bulk Email: Definitions and Problems, Internet Mail Consortium, Oct. 5, 1997

2. U.S. Department of Energy Computer Incident Advisory Capability, E-Mail Spamming Countermeasures: Detection and Prevention of E-Mail Spamming (CIAC Information Bulletin I-005c), Nov. 25, 1997 +

3. Lorrie Faith Cranor & Brian A. LaMacchia, Spam!, Communications of the ACM, Aug. 1998, at 74 +

4. Ray Everett-Church, The Spam That Started It All, Wired News, Apr. 13, 1999 +

5. Brad Templeton, Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Spam, May 2003

6. ADDED 7/1/03:  Eric Goldman, Spam Is Just a Byproduct of our Media-Saturated World, San Jose Mercury News, July 1, 2003 +

7. Steve Linford, Playing the Spam Legalization Game, DM News, June 2, 2003, at 28 +

8. Stephen Cobb, The Economics of Spam, ePrivacy Group, Feb. 2003 +




Fraud / Enforcement / Litigation (June 22)

1. Federal Trade Commission, Prepared Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on "Unsolicited Commercial Email," Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, May 21, 2003 +

2. David E. Sorkin, Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Electronic Mail, 35 U.S.F. L. Rev. 325 (2001) +

3. Dianne Plunkett Latham, Electronic Commerce in the 21st Century: Spam Remedies, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1649 (2001)

4. Dan L. Burk, The Trouble with Trespass, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 27 (2000) +

5. Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 436 (E.D. Pa. 1996) +

6. Cyber Promotions, Inc. v. America Online, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 456 (E.D. Pa. 1996) +

7. CompuServe v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D. Ohio 1997) +

8. AOL's Request for an Order to Show Cause, America Online, Inc. v. CN Productions, Inc., No. 98-552-A (E.D. Va. filed May 24, 2001) +

9. America Online, Inc. v. CN Productions, Inc., No. 98-552-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2002) (redacted order and memorandum opinion) +

10. Verizon Online Services, Inc. v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Va. 2002)

11. Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) +




Permission Marketing (July 12)

1. Direct Marketing Association, Anti-Spam Working Strategy, May 27, 2003 +

2. Ian Oxman, Best Practices: Permission Email Marketing, Innovyx/RappDigital White Paper, May 2001 (Word .doc format) +

3. Glow Nair & Anne P. Mitchell, The Case for Confirmed Opt-In: Improving the Return on Investment (ROI) for Direct Email Campaigns, Oct. 18, 2002 +




Technical Responses (July 12)

1. Paul Hoffman & Dave Crocker, Unsolicited Bulk Email: Mechanisms for Control, Internet Mail Consortium, May 4, 1998

2. Ian Ayres & Matthew Funk, Marketing Privacy, 20 Yale J. on Reg. 77 (2003)

3. Media3 Technologies, LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310, 2001 WL 92389 (D. Mass. Jan. 2, 2001)

4. Rene Ryman, The Adverse Impact of Anti-Spam Companies, 20 Computer & Internet Law. 15 (Jan. 2003)




Legislation (July 12)

1. Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227

2. California spam legislation

3. Delaware spam legislation

4. Ohio spam legislation

5. Virginia spam legislation

6. Washington spam legislation

7. CAN-SPAM Act, S. 877, 108th Cong. (2003) (Burns-Wyden)

8. RID Spam Act, H.R. 2214, 108th Cong. (2003) (Burr-Tauzin-Sensenbrenner)

9. REDUCE Spam Act, H.R. 1933, 108th Cong. (2003) (Lofgren)

10. SPAM Act, S. 1231, 108th Cong. (2003) (Schumer)

11. Lawrence Lessig, A Bounty on Spammers, CIO Insight, Sept. 16, 2002 +




Constitutional and Policy Issues (July 12)

1. State v. Heckel, 143 Wash. 2d 824, 24 P.3d 404 (2001) +

2. Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc., 94 Cal. App. 4th 1255, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 258 (1st Dist. 2002)

3. Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc., 323 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2003)

4. DELETED 6/30/03:  Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 94 Cal. App. 4th 325, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 244 (3d Dist. 2001), appeal pending (Cal. 2003)

5. ADDED 6/30/03:  Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 2003 WL 21488209 (Cal. June 30, 2003) +

6. American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Model Rule 7.3 +

7. Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 U.S. 466 (1988) +

8. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Interest Position on Junk Email: Protect Innocent Users, Oct. 16, 2001 +

9. Hanah Metchis & Solveig Singleton, Spam, That Ill O’ the ISP: A Reality Check for Legislators, Competitive Enerprise Institute, May 21, 2003 +

10. Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., Why Canning "Spam" Is a Bad Idea, Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 408, July 26, 2001 +




International Issues (July 12)

1. National Office for the Information Economy (Australia), Spam: Final Report of the NOIE Review of the Spam Problem and How It Can Be Countered, April 2003 +

2. Industry Canada, E-Mail Marketing: Consumer Choices and Business Opportunities, January 2003 +

3. Directive 2002/58/EC Concerning the Processing of Personal Data and the Protection of Privacy in the Electronic Communications Sector, 2002 O.J. (L 201) 37 (European Union E-Privacy Directive -- see Article 13)+

Additional Resources

1. Spam Laws

2. SpamCon Foundation

3. SamSpade.org

4. CentralOps.net Domain Dossier

5. Whois Source

6. Internet Privacy for Dummies

7. FTC Spam Forum, April 30 - May 2, 2003 (including agenda and transcripts) +

8. Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email

9. Junkbusters

10. Spam discussions on Slashdot

11. Law review articles about spam

12. WAISP Registry

13. spamNEWS

14. unspam, LLC, How to Craft an Effective Anti-Spam Law, part 1