Faxing Ads

[Beth & Rod]

I'll add the discussion from elsewhere:

I guess it depends on how you interpret "permission"....
Ron and I are on the same page, and you and Ron are on the same page, so I guess you agree with me too.

Beth

 

[MMI Enterprises]

Surely it does.... and since many a folk and business alike apparently decided the language as vague or open to too much interprit it inspired ammending. The logic involved there alone totally justifies need for pointing out that it is not so simple as one word. In some mind the word 'permission' would mean a direct verbal or written statement to a specific individual or entity and that is simply not the case here involved with the EBR.
If you believe my saying 'not exactly true' is improper in some way then go ahead and say it to all those behind the ammending as well.
Personally I believe being a bit more inclusive was in order.
Beth, ..Do you Rod, and Ron all believe the following untrue? Will be glad to fix if it isn't.

The word 'permission' sort of went unclear/undefined hence some additional ammending is my interprit. 'Expressed INVITATION' now belongs and when it comes to business to business faxing it becomes apparent that most any method of your obtaining their fax number in the first place makes for an invitation since it was published as contact info. When fax number is in a mailing list or on a businesses web page, or published, etc. they are basically holding theirself out as doing business and offer invite.

If you would have said 'If you have permission and/or expressed invitation..No' then I would take no issue. But straight up when you go dropping a big red 'Yes' to a question of doing an illegal act and leave out the deeper issues of what went down I call an on the line foul ball. But don't take it personal.. we are all after same truth afterall and yes people do need to do their own checking for theirselves in the end. A little agree to disagree often inspires such...just look at them greaser guys.



PS- and btw..how ya figure Ron on same page when he specifically uses words of 'random' and implies it the more important point or goes on TGS and does similar by pointing out things of carrier involve or things about residential consumer or what have you? Where we would all probably be on same page is that for some it is complex issue this thing of faxing.
Ron, You'de be welcome to let us know if you call each and every potential customer before you fax them or if whether you also use confirmed lists, etc.. I think you do.

 

[ckingclean]

Surely it does.... and since many a folk and business alike apparently decided the language as vague or open to too much interprit it inspired ammending. The logic involved there alone totally justifies need for pointing out that it is not so simple as one word. In some mind the word 'permission' would mean a direct verbal or written statement to a specific individual or entity and that is simply not the case here involved with the EBR.
If you believe my saying 'not exactly true' is improper in some way then go ahead and say it to all those behind the ammending as well.
Personally I believe being a bit more inclusive was in order.
Beth, ..Do you Rod, and Ron all believe the following untrue? Will be glad to fix if it isn't.



If you would have said 'If you have permission and/or expressed invitation..No' then I would take no issue. But straight up when you go dropping a big red 'Yes' to a question of doing an illegal act and leave out the deeper issues of what went down I call an on the line foul ball. But don't take it personal.. we are all after same truth afterall and yes people do need to do their own checking for theirselves in the end. A little agree to disagree often inspires such...just look at them greaser guys.



PS- and btw..how ya figure Ron on same page when he specifically uses words of 'random' and implies it the more important point or goes on TGS and does similar by pointing out things of carrier involve or things about residential consumer or what have you? Where we would all probably be on same page is that for some it is complex issue this thing of faxing.
Ron, You'de be welcome to let us know if you call each and every potential customer before you fax them or if whether you also use confirmed lists, etc.. I think you do.

That was quite a post!

 

[Tony Shelton]

Surely it does.... and since many a folk and business alike apparently decided the language as vague or open to too much interprit it inspired ammending. The logic involved there alone totally justifies need for pointing out that it is not so simple as one word. In some mind the word 'permission' would mean a direct verbal or written statement to a specific individual or entity and that is simply not the case here involved with the EBR.
If you believe my saying 'not exactly true' is improper in some way then go ahead and say it to all those behind the ammending as well.
Personally I believe being a bit more inclusive was in order.
Beth, ..Do you Rod, and Ron all believe the following untrue? Will be glad to fix if it isn't.



If you would have said 'If you have permission and/or expressed invitation..No' then I would take no issue. But straight up when you go dropping a big red 'Yes' to a question of doing an illegal act and leave out the deeper issues of what went down I call an on the line foul ball. But don't take it personal.. we are all after same truth afterall and yes people do need to do their own checking for theirselves in the end. A little agree to disagree often inspires such...just look at them greaser guys.



PS- and btw..how ya figure Ron on same page when he specifically uses words of 'random' and implies it the more important point or goes on TGS and does similar by pointing out things of carrier involve or things about residential consumer or what have you? Where we would all probably be on same page is that for some it is complex issue this thing of faxing.
Ron, You'de be welcome to let us know if you call each and every potential customer before you fax them or if whether you also use confirmed lists, etc.. I think you do.

Thus far I have either personally called or had my girls call every one I have faxed to and get names or I have already had some sort of business relationship with them. (We have already over 30,000 documented customers between the three businesses we've owned. )

Are you saying that publishing your fax number is an invitation?

If that has been upheld in a court somewhere I'd like to use that to my advantage.

Ideally for me I'd like to find a satellite map where I can look at rooftops, click on the building, get the fax number and fax a hard proposal immediately without any previous contact, then followup in a couple of days via a phone call.

I could bid 50 a day like that.

You lost me, and I'm not going to let you take my crown on longwindedness and confusing posts.

 

[MMI Enterprises]

YES..lol

 

[MMI Enterprises]

Follow my logic if you can:

Note that main fcc page can very easily be misunderstood. Very early on in the page it can be seen that what it really addresses is the issue of what the ammendmen does or was for and in such it gets people off tract from a very important point. They are pushing a need for and definitions of EBR. This is putting the cart before the horse and is trickery. What applies in my opinion is this part "The rules provide that it is unlawful to send unsolicited advertisements to any fax machine, including those at both businesses and residences, without the recipient’s prior express invitation or permission." THEN if you don't have that the next sentance (the trickery of the page as a whole) CAN be applied: "Fax advertisements, however, may be sent to recipients with whom the sender has an EBR, as long as the fax number was provided voluntarily by the recipient." This is of course not needed when the other requirement is met...hence the wording farther on of: "Senders of permissible fax advertisements (those sent under an EBR or with the recipient’s prior express permission) must provide notice and contact information on the fax that allows recipients to “opt-out” of future faxes. Note it doesn't use the word 'and'.


Far as satisfying the EBR, IF trying to go that route for your compliance... I say in what world would the availability of a list or directory or other source ever equate with an already EBR situation.
"Specifically, a fax advertisement may be sent to an EBR customer if the sender also: ---has taken reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have the number listed, if obtained from a directory or other source of information compiled by a third party." You can't have a need for a 3rd party list or directory or such if ya already have an EBR now could ya?
Now look at the other two rules/options and the use of 'own':
"obtains the fax number directly from the recipient, through, for example, an application, contact information form, or membership renewal form; or obtains the fax number from the recipient’s own directory, advertisement, or site on the Internet, unless the recipient has noted on such materials that it does not accept unsolicited advertisements at the fax number in question." Again it's like a direct conflict of words, meaning, or intention compared to the list/directory option. Why are such sources as 'other sources' even mentioned we could ask if 'own' is mandatory. No choice but to view the language of the page as flawed and if anything the 3 statements are of course options that can be taken individually without regard to the others. Is all dumb compostion really...(like mine..lol)

So now back to the topic of complying without gong the EBR route. We have to satisfy the term 'express invitation or permission'. Personal or direct Permission is easy..make a tele call, have a name on file, end of story. But it doesn't really say personally obtained or direct, etc. now does it? Perhaps some would say the 'express invitation' option may be up for debate far its definition. Has the law or fcc established a def of this?. I can not say for sure but common sense would say that if the number was expressed somewheres public then it means its usable by said public to communicate to or rather in fact an invitation. The conjuctive use of 'expressed invitation' directly complimenting 'permission' is for sure offered for the very reason that there are many business or people in general that do want to receive faxes. If not there would be no need for the mention of the do not call list as it pertains to fax calls or the use of "unless the recipient has noted on such materials that it does not accept unsolicited advertisements at the fax number in question" on peoples contact pages, etc.

What does 'express' mean?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/express "Definitely and explicitly stated"
synonym= http://www.thefreedictionary.com/explicit "readily observable"
(aka- That business definitely made their fax number readily observable for me to use)



Disclaimer: Use at your own risk. I am not a lawyer and not offering legal advice. This has just been conjecture or personal opinion of how I read things to mean.

 

[MMI Enterprises]

Are you saying that publishing your fax number is an invitation?

If that has been upheld in a court somewhere I'd like to use that to my advantage.

Haven't found such upheld yet as I only just started looking but have found the opposite where plaintif won. In layman terms though I think the win was based on something of ambiguity in respect to a private membership. I take it the membership directory being discussed was just between members and not a public thing. Here is that link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/112006/&invol=2211106
Point II In its second point, the defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to present undisputed facts that it did not consent to receive faxes from the defendant. The defendant argues that, as a member of the International Airlines Travel Agent Network (IATAN), the plaintiff had consented to release of its contact information to other IATAN members, including the defendant. The defendant argues that, through its IATAN membership and execution of IATAN membership forms, the plaintiff consented to receive facsimiles from IATAN members wishing to use the plaintiff's services. The plaintiff counters that the Act requires "express permission or invitation" from the recipient before a party may fax an advertisement, that the plaintiff did not give such permission, and that IATAN membership provided no such permission. The plaintiff further contends that whether its IATAN membership constituted express consent is a disputed issue of law, not a disputed issue of fact.
The parties agree on the underlying facts as to this point. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are members of the travel-industry group IATAN. The plaintiff included its name and contact information, including its telephone facsimile number, in IATAN's member directory and database. The plaintiff also executed IATAN membership forms, which stated, "The applicant authorizes the International Airlines Travel Agent Network to release the information contained herein to any industry supplier that may wish to use the applicant's services."(FN5) The defendant thus claims a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff had given express consent to receive facsimiles from the defendant. We disagree with the defendant's analysis. Whether the plaintiff's IATAN membership constituted prior express invitation or permission, pursuant to the Act, for the defendant to send facsimiles to the plaintiff is a question of law. There is no genuine dispute of material fact involving consent. Indeed, the record here is agreed upon. Rather, the dispute is to the legal effect of the plaintiff's IATAN membership. And, because we find no ambiguity in the terms of the plaintiff's IATAN membership, the issue is purely one of law.

I surely wouldn't want to be the first to have to prove that a number held out for the world to see means an express invitation so I will likely keep searching for more basis before I fax unsolicited stuffs.

Last I heard on Ca was that in April of 06' a judge threw out the part of bill sb833's attempt at doing away with the EBR exemption part of the fed law which was aimed at interstate faxing. The main part of 'express invitation or permission' to do with intrastate wasn't to be effected. So as I currently take it we are only going off the main ammended junk fax act.
I would luv to see upheld cases of a published number meaning an invite but I just don't have it. Last two sentance in legal quote above leads me to think that such determination is all about 'legal effects' of what that publishing implies or means. I persoanlly will always take it to mean "call me I'm open for business".
Funny I done scared myself now..haha ..why I don;t know when my last post shows express or explicit means 'readily observable'...oh I know why, cause judges legislate from the bench and often do things cause they want to. Been there done that. So Caveat Emptor
To be continued...

PS- Might all be right here but I too tired to make heads or tail: http://books.google.com/books?id=hn...&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1190,M1

 

[Tony Shelton]

Today I got a call from a property manager (rental houses) to clean coils annually on over 300 houses to keep the properties covered under the home warranty.

I can schedule them between other jobs throughout the year whenever I want as long as they are cleaned annually and documented.

He faxed over the first of the list and a PO today.

This was from an unsolicited fax we sent in January.

 

[IndyExterior]

I don't think the feds are a problem. Check your state laws. Our state must be sending a "cease and desist" letter prior to putting the hammer down. I think that's what the voluntary compliance is about. If you can get business until you get a warning go for it.

State sues 3 companies for allegedly violating 'Do Not Fax' law

By Associated Press
7:02 PM CDT, April 9, 2009

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana's attorney general has sued companies in New York, Texas and Oklahoma for allegedly violating the state's "Do Not Fax" law by sending unsolicited advertisements.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller says he filed suits Thursday following complaints by consumers against New York-based Arthur Gordon Associates, National Fluid Power Institute of Texas, and Oklahoma Lending Tree.

Indiana law makes the transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements a deceptive act and allows the attorney general's office to seek civil penalties of up to $1,500 per violation. Since the law began more than two years ago, the attorney general's office has filed 27 suits and obtained voluntary compliance from more than 400 others.