The ultimate answer would be to redesign email, but I don’t like where this leads in terms of that it opens the door for people to redesign the free wheeling internet into something more like AOL. On the whole, if spam is a side effect of being able to do things on the net without some entity overseeing people’s behavior, I’ll put up with the spam. It can still be filtered or deleted. Getting spam is not like dragging a cross around.

Can you explain how I could do this in the email environment?

I think Mark Murphy said it best. It’s not the content, it’s the form that matters. (Granted, if I’d recieved one of these emails from Prof Lessig, in this situation, I probably wouldn’t have minded too much, but in general I don’t see a difference between commercial and non-commercial spam).

…Thanks,
…Ken

At least people aren’t asking for you to resign from your leadership role, sigh.
-russ

With regards to communication, implicit consent is the default rule. If you have a front door, you’re considered to be fine with people walking up to it, knocking, and talking to you. If you have an address, the same goes for mail. If you have a phone, the same goes for calls. Why would email be any different? If someone doesn’t want to incur the natural costs of having these avenues of communication, it’s their problem. They can always get rid of their email. Complaining that the email system does what it’s supposed to do — send and deliver email — makes no sense.

If someone doesn’t want to be communicated with, it’s their responsibility to provide reasonable advance notice of this, such as by setting up clearly visible ‘no solicitors’ signs. And even then, while the freedom of speech of the speakers certainly wouldn’t force you to accept messages in your private demenses, I find it unlikely that it would not permit them to make the attempt. They still can’t force your receipt of it, and not every single attempt will necessarily rise to the level of being some sort of offense, e.g. harassment.

The mere fact that some people are highly discriminating as to who they want to hear from should not require the world to submit to their whims. It’s no real burden at all to not open the door, to not pick up the phone, to throw out the mail, or to delete unwanted mail. If someone cannot be troubled to do that, how can they possibly have the gall to demand that the rest of the world take more significant measures to avoid imposing the most trivial of discomforts. Certainly no one is holding a gun to their heads and making them engage in conversation.

Provided it’s not misleading, and that requests to opt out are obeyed, I have no qualms with commercial spam. Nor should any spam be sent in a harassing manner.

Aside from that, however, I’m going to side with freedom of speech, and therefore spammers. The alternative, where people cannot communicate without explicit permission, is unacceptable in a free society. A free society might not be entirely convenient or enjoyable (e.g. having to put up with Illinois Nazis) but thems the breaks.

And before people go around besmirching my character, let me point out that I probably hate ads more than any of you. I filter everything pretty rigorously, even the pictures of Prof. Lessig’s books at the top of the blog page. I’ll get an augmented reality set the first instant I can, and immediately filter out ads, jingles, logos, etc. from the real world too. But my personal views simply must not be imposed on everyone else! That goes for the rest of you too. People should be free to accept ads if they like, or free to reject them if they like, and this means putting the burden on the rejectors.

So you might have committed a minor faux pas, Professor Lessig, but that’s the worst of it. I’m more upset with the rest of the folks here.

It wouldn’t surprise me if your sending IP address has found its way onto various blocklists, reported as spam by some recipients. Be prepared to have some of your mail blocked at some incoming ISPs over the next 12 to 48 hours.

With all due respect, your plea for not stigmatizing bulk email for your intended purpose has the same flavor as spammers’ justifications for ignoring the consent issue for what they send (e.g., with the possibly good and honest intention of saving the recipient money on inkjet cartridges). Even worse for your potential causes, future petitions may garner fewer signatures if you don’t include prior consent options (ideally, through a confirmed opt-in process).

I only want the following in my email box:
1) Email from friends and fmily.
2) Email from mailing lists and such that I explicitly ask for.
3) Email from “friends of friends” – i.e. I might not know them, but they have a specific reason to contact me vs the entire world “Bob told me you could help me with this” qualifies “Please random person, help us save the world” does not.

Why not start the Copyright Action Network (hey, it even has a decent acronym :). Set up a web site where you post action items and have a page where people can opt in/out of a mailing list that you use to announce those action items that are particularly important or urgent. You could send one last message to your current “mailing list” (after carefully processing all the unsubscribe requests) asking those who still want to receive this kind of thing to sign up for the new list.

Seems like this would solve your problems (while obviously creating the new problem of having to do the work to set up and maintain the website, but hey, isn’t that what grad students are for? 🙂