through the nose for their deal. I doubt Sanford and his business colleagues do any sort of lobbying. It doesn't seem quite fair they are riding on big software's coat tails. Of course there is less and less difference in the outcome or the product so maybe it's understandable

the courts have trouble differentiating.

The fork-and-knife icon for this article is pure class. Any chance we can get that added to the comment group? I can only imagine its creative applications...

It's long past time that any court should go lightly on spammers, regardless of their "inability to pay". This case involves particularly heinous computer crimes and Wallace is in direct contempt of the courts previous rulings AND lied about his ability to pay.

For first timers, 7 days standing naked in the stocks in Folsom Prison seems an appropriate punishment. Lube is at the "mercy of the Court".

Can you say "Not again Bubba"?

Second offenders should get the stocks again, followed by seizure all of their private assets, garnishment of current and future wages, pensions, and social security funds.

Third offenders should get the Spammer equivalent of Shariah Law.... cut off their fingers and gouge out their eyes with a spoon. That will make sure they never touch a computer again!

Last but not least, are fourth offenders. Start at the beginning and add "Caged Rats with nothing to eat but the Spammers privates".

If sentences like the aforementioned would dissuade spammers, just think how they might help the development of secure Microsoft browsers and other software if similarly applied?

The Evil Ballmer Icon representing my feelings on poorly designed software manufacturers as well as spammers.

So this guy invented junk faxing, was the spam king for years, and he's still at it.

Why hasn't someone killed him yet? If I didn't live 6000 miles away, I'd be very tempted to track him down, and at least give him a whack with a baseball bat.

Couldn't the victims of this miscreant, and the FTC take action agains the companies advertising through this scheme? If I remember correctly, the owner of the product advertised is responsible for making sure marketing is done lawfully, thus there should be an option for MySpace and each-and-every user to sue this miscreants customers, and thus set up a solid warning: If you do business with crooks. you WILL be held responsible for it.

This way those miscreants are probably better stopped, because there no longer exists any market for them to return to when they are done in court.

Now, the REAL fun part would be that those creators of the software he unlawfully spread, has two choices: They can file charges against him for illegally distributing their copyrighted work, or they can sit beside him as defendants (because they would be as responsible). If they are a little smart, they file charges for illegal distribution. Thus we have an opening for using the DMCA for something a little bit more useful than what the music-and-movie-mafia are using it for. This is a win-win-situation. :)

//Svein

Why they don't go after this sh1tbag, and every other spyware "vendor", for what they really are.

If you or I wrote a program which found it's way onto a computer via a dodgy website link, which caused that computer to malfunction, stole personal details, and turned out to be damn near impossible to remove, we'd be hunted down as the virus writers and identity thieves we were. If we used those details to access thousands of accounts without permission, we'd be charged with unlawful access, or something similarly cracker-ish. We *would* do jail time, have all our computer hardware seized, and probably have court orders slapped on us, Mitnick-style, preventing us from using computers or the internet, as part of our probation terms.

Yet these low-lifes do it, and call it "advertising", and call themselves "businessmen", and somehow they can f**k with whoever's computers they want and get little more than a slap on the wrist? So he turns around and does it all over again almost as soon as he gets home from the last court date. Why is anyone surprised that he'd do that when he knows he's got away with it so far, and no doubt understands the legal aspects well enough to know that it's stacked very much in his favor?

Spyware == Malware == Viruses. Unlawful access to accounts is pretty clear cut too. The sooner the legal system understands that, the sooner people like Wallace will face punishment that might deter them from what they do.

If the FTC is not allowed to seek punitive damages, can someone else file an amicus curiae brief during one of the cases the FTC brings, requesting just that. If they can demonstrate the harm these guys do, and how tied the FTC's hands are, perhaps a judge might be persuaded to set a more appropriate level of fines?