| Comment Number: | OL-103576 |
| Received: | 11/28/2004 12:45:12 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Glen Noland |
| State: | KS |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
With respect to the proposed rule changes regarding telemarketing calls: 1) My telephones and answering machines are *private property* and are NOT available to any use without my prior written permission. Such permission is required for *each* such call, unless I grant wider permission. Buying something once from a company does NOT grant any such permission. 2) The leaving of pre-recorded advertising messages on my answering machines constitutes theft by conversion. Specifically, under Kansas law (Criminal Deprivation of Property) it is a crime to use private property without the owners' *prior* permission, when such use prevents the property owner from using said property, even temporarily. Leaving a message on my answering machine means that that part of the message tape cannot be used by me for whatever period of time the message remains on the tape. 3) ANY business, charitable, religious or political entity, any political candidate, or any person acting on behalf of such entity, which leaves such message, or makes live telemarketing calls to my phone, will be: a) boycotted and/or blacklisted as appropriate; b) subject to civil litigation and/or criminal prosecution for theft; c) may be subject to civil litigation and/or criminal prosecution for computer crimes, in the event my computer based phone and answering machine happens to recieve the call. 4) Any person aiding and abetting such theft will be considered to be acting as a principle in the crime, and also held liable. In other words, if FTC wants to change the Do Not Call rules, change them to outlaw ALL such calls, without exception. When I say DO NOT CALL, I mean exactly that. Let these people pay for their advertising themselves, instead of stealing resources from me. This is NOT a "free speech" issue at all. This is a *property rights* issue, plain and simple. There is simply no such thing as a "free speech" right to steal. Glen Noland