Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The CAN-SPAM Act: Regulates, Doesn't Eliminate, Spam
The CAN-SPAM Act ' “Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003″ ' went into effect Jan. 1, and has important implications for anyone engaged in the sending of unsolicited e-mails, which are commonly known as spam. Contrary to public opinion, the act does not make spam unlawful; it attempts to regulate it.
CAN-SPAM Recap
The CAN-SPAM Act has three provisions to which spammers must adhere.
- Labeling. Unsolicited e-mails must be clearly identified as solicitation or advertisements for products and services.
- Offering an opt-out option. Senders must provide easily accessible, legitimate means for recipients to “opt-out” of receiving future messages.
- Revelation of the sender's addresses. Unsolicited e-mails must contain legitimate return e-mail addresses, as well as the sender's postal address. (It should be noted that the CAN-SPAM Act offers some exclusion from the aforementioned three requirements noted above.)
For recipients who have previously consented to receipt of unsolicited commercial e-mail, the act has two additional requirements.
- Spammers must use honest subject lines. Use of misleading or bogus subject lines to trick readers into opening messages is forbidden.
- Spammers must comply with the “Do Not E-Mail Registry.” The CAN-SPAM Act indicates that within 6 months, a proposed plan will be submitted to Congress by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for a “Do Not E-Mail” list.
More than 30 states have enacted anti-spam legislation. The CAN-SPAM Act is intended to supersede state or local anti-spam laws, with certain exceptions for state laws related to deceptive trade practices or “computer crime.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?