QUOTE
London - Most people just grumble and hit delete, but when Gordon Dick received an unwanted spam message advertising internet services, he decided to fight back.
The 30-year-old Edinburgh man successfully sued the sender, Transcom Internet Services Ltd, in small claims court. The court ordered the company to pay him £750 in damages and £619 in court costs - in a case that showed how expensive spam can be for senders.
"Some people just delete and ignore it," Dick told The Associated Press.
"But if someone was throwing stones through your window, would you just ignore it? It's anti-social behavior and they shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Junk e-mail costs the British economy an estimated £1.3bn a year in lost productivity and additional information technology costs, according to a study by San Francisco-based Ferris Research.
Dick, an internet marketing specialist, represented himself in Edinburgh's Sheriff Court, arguing that Transcom had taken his e-mail address from an internet forum without his consent, violating the European Union Data Protection Act.
Judgement a landmark ruling
Transcom director William Smith denied the February 2006 message was spam, and said Dick received the company mailing after his address was accidentally taken from a group e-mail and added to a company database. Smith said the e-mail was sent to 41 000 people.
Transcom's lawyers argued damages were not warranted because the spam did not hurt Dick financially, but the court rejected the arguments. They offered to settle out of court for the maximum £750 damages allowed for in the Data Protection Act, but did not pay within an agreed period.
Smith said Transcom's lawyers did not attend a final hearing on January 30 and his company had not been notified about the judgment.
The judgment could make it prohibitively expensive for British-based companies - or individuals - to send spam, said Nick Lockett, a London-based lawyer who specialises in internet law.
He said companies could base damages on the money they spend on spam filtering software and server space needed to the handle unwanted bulk advertising.
"The odds are at least one of the 10 000 people they are annoying through their spam may be prepared to take action," Lockett said.
In another known British anti-spam case, Nigel Roberts won a £300 out-of-court settlement in 2005 after he received unwanted e-mails from a car company and a fax broadcasting business.
"I don't think it's that people don't want to go after these people," said Roberts, who runs an internet company in the Channel Islands. "The majority of people don't know how to look at the spam e-mail and identify who sent it."
Both Dick and Roberts have set up websites offering advice on how to fight spammers in court.
The 30-year-old Edinburgh man successfully sued the sender, Transcom Internet Services Ltd, in small claims court. The court ordered the company to pay him £750 in damages and £619 in court costs - in a case that showed how expensive spam can be for senders.
"Some people just delete and ignore it," Dick told The Associated Press.
"But if someone was throwing stones through your window, would you just ignore it? It's anti-social behavior and they shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Junk e-mail costs the British economy an estimated £1.3bn a year in lost productivity and additional information technology costs, according to a study by San Francisco-based Ferris Research.
Dick, an internet marketing specialist, represented himself in Edinburgh's Sheriff Court, arguing that Transcom had taken his e-mail address from an internet forum without his consent, violating the European Union Data Protection Act.
Judgement a landmark ruling
Transcom director William Smith denied the February 2006 message was spam, and said Dick received the company mailing after his address was accidentally taken from a group e-mail and added to a company database. Smith said the e-mail was sent to 41 000 people.
Transcom's lawyers argued damages were not warranted because the spam did not hurt Dick financially, but the court rejected the arguments. They offered to settle out of court for the maximum £750 damages allowed for in the Data Protection Act, but did not pay within an agreed period.
Smith said Transcom's lawyers did not attend a final hearing on January 30 and his company had not been notified about the judgment.
The judgment could make it prohibitively expensive for British-based companies - or individuals - to send spam, said Nick Lockett, a London-based lawyer who specialises in internet law.
He said companies could base damages on the money they spend on spam filtering software and server space needed to the handle unwanted bulk advertising.
"The odds are at least one of the 10 000 people they are annoying through their spam may be prepared to take action," Lockett said.
In another known British anti-spam case, Nigel Roberts won a £300 out-of-court settlement in 2005 after he received unwanted e-mails from a car company and a fax broadcasting business.
"I don't think it's that people don't want to go after these people," said Roberts, who runs an internet company in the Channel Islands. "The majority of people don't know how to look at the spam e-mail and identify who sent it."
Both Dick and Roberts have set up websites offering advice on how to fight spammers in court.
Yes please, finally some justice. Well, 750 pounds worth
It may be a start though, a survey said that 80% of all web traffic is spam. That is frightening...
I wouldn't mind 750!!!