SOPA and PIPA update

There is quite a bit of vocal opposition to the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) making its way through the House of Representatives and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) making its way through the Senate. The opposition seems to have had an effect. I blogged about the bills late last year.
CNet reported today that the DNS provision was pulled from SOPA. This resolves one, but certainly not the only problem with SOPA. Also today, OpenCongress.org posted a letter from 6 co-sponsors of the Senate bill to Majority Leader Reid asking him to cancel the vote on PIPA.
Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to make their voice heard by their elected representatives.
 

Delivery versus marketing
Is any data safe?

Related Posts

Canada passes anti-spam bill

Call it C-28, call it FISA, call it COPL, just don’t call it a pipe dream any longer.
Today the Canadian anti spam law received royal assent and is now law. ReturnPath is saying it will take effect September 2011, but that’s the only date I’ve seen published. The full text of the bill as passed by the House of Commons can be found at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/403/Government/C-28/C-28_3/C-28_3.PDF
It’s fairly dense and I’m still reading through the final version. Of critical importance for anyone marketing in Canada is that it sets requirements that commercial email be sent with the permission of the recipient. This is different from CAN SPAM here in the US which doesn’t require consent of the recipient, but allows anyone to send unsolicited email as long as it meets the standards set by the law.
CBC Story

Return Path blog post
CAUCE posts
Thin Data implementation guide

Read More

New EU directives

The EU has published consumer protection directives. Members states have 2 years to implement and enforce these directives.
The interesting bit is this:

Read More

Click-wrap licenses again

Earlier this week ARS Technica reported on a ruling from the Missouri Court of Appeals stating that terms and conditions are enforceable even if the users are not forced to visit the T&C pages. Judge Rahmeyer, one of the panel members, did point out that the term in question, under what state laws the agreement would be enforced, was not an unreasonable request. She “do[es] not want [their] opinion to indicate that consumers assent to any buried term that a website may provide simply by using the website or clicking ‘I agree.'”
What does this have to do with email? Well, it means that reasonable terms in the agreements may still be binding even if the user does not read the full terms of the opt in before submitting an email address. In practical terms, though, there’s very little that has changed. Hiding grants of permission deep in a terms document has long been a sneaky trick practiced by spammers and list sellers. Legitimate companies already make terms clear so that users know what type of and how much mail to expect by signing up to a list. They also know that the legal technicalities of permission are not as important as meeting the recipients expectations.

Read More