Seller dayecon threating legal action against The Acaeum
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 612, 3, 4, 56
Author


Active Collector

Posts: 92
Joined: Feb 15, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 07, 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA

Post Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:17 pm 
 

FoulFoot wrote:Hi folks,

I thought you should all be aware that seller "dayecon" on eBay (who purports to be Stephen Dayton at [email protected], and who allegedly represents Dayecon Inc, LLC), has informed us of his intent to sue this website for infringement of copyright.

Specifically, he charges that his company name, "dayecon", is used on this website without permission.  I checked, and his name has been used in several forum postings, most notably the "Shady Dealers" thread.  Seeing no violation of copyright in any of the postings, I told him that his name would not be redacted from any messages.

He replied today with the following:


Therefore, I'd simply like to let all of you know that I intend to stand by my position that his name will not be removed from the site.  Furthermore, I urge all of you to take the above into consideration when considering whether or not to deal with seller "dayecon" on eBay.

Regards,

Foul


Hey Foul -

I'm not sure how he thinks you are violating his trademark, but what I would be more concerned about would be a defamation claim.  Of course, truth is a 100% defense to defamation, so I'm sure your forums are fine!  For example, these cases that he mentions - do not show up on a google search and are not in Westlaw's database.  Others have already pointed out that his legal theory doesn't work because he doesn't have a trademark and copyright doesn't apply.  If you do get anything in the mail (not friggen likely) you can threaten the attorney will loads of sanctions and ethics complaints.  Let me know if you need more information on that.

Hilarious avatar, Xaxaxe.

In addition, if you guys need any detailed legal information more than you can find on Google, feel free to shoot me a PM; I am a law student and have free access to all the online resources (at least until I graduate in Dec.).  


As a small caveat, I'm not (yet) an attorney so don't go getting me in trouble!



 WWW ICQ  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3800
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 16, 2022

Post Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:00 pm 
 

I guess the "small caveat" explains her facial expression in your avatar, eh?


Let mirth prevail!

  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:20 pm 
 

Seriously, you've got to love an aspiring attorney who uses the greatest sexual-harrassment picture of all time for his avatar!  :)

(And, really, she doesn't look too pleased. I think she's got a case. :wink:)

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:19 am 
 

So...dayecon wants to sue because his anonymous name has been used in print?

By the same logic, wouldn't it then be possible for any company to sue any print media source for printing anything said company does not like.

For instance, if I were to write that I dislike Ford automobiles or Time magazine or Shell Oil or Sears...then they could sue me because it is illegal to write down their names?

Under that interpretation, for instance, Consumer Reports could be sued for saying that one brand of pancake mix tastes better to them than another.

It would also be possible to sue for complaining that Winston cigarettes cause cancer or that my Wonder Bread wasn't all that wonderful.

Under that interpretation of the law, it would be impossible to mention the name of any company at all in any sort of written media without infringing a trademark.

I imagine that it might be possible to sue for libel if someone made false statements online that damaged another person's reputation.  In that case, the complaintant would have to prove that the statement was false.  In the case of a newspaper, the compaintant would also have to prove not only falsehood but also malicious intent.

Remember when Hustler magazine was sued by Jerry Falwell (of the Moral Majority) for using his picture and some heinous text in their porn magazine?  Specifically, Hustler published a fake advertisment in which Jerry Falwell confessed to having his first sexual experience as a boy, in the family outhouse, with his mother.

Despite the fact that Hustler used Falwell's name and image...and printed outlandishly false and grotesque things about Falwell...and did so in an advertisment claiming to directly quote Falwell...Hustler won the resulting libel suit.  They argued that anyone reading Hustler magazine was already likely to have a negative opinion of Falwell.  They also argued that their spoof ad was over-the-top and not likely to be mistaken for reality by any sensible person.  Falwell lost his suit.

In the 1980's, Time magazine printed a false report about (then) Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.  There were two versions of the lawsuit...one in Israel and one in the United States.  The Israeli version of the suit lasted two hours and resulted in a victory for Sharon...since the Israeli definition of libel only required that the information be a deliberate falsehood.  (In point of fact...and by their own admission in court, Time knowingly fabricated details in a printed news report.)

Sharon's American lawsuit dragged on for months.  Although Sharon was able to prove that Time knowingly printed false information...and that the article falsely impugned his character...he lost his case.  In America the complaintant in a libel case has to prove malice.  Sharon could prove that Time lied out of thin air...but he could not prove that they deliberately and maliciously tried to damage his reputation.

(For the truly interested...and I realize I am way off topic...follow the link below for  details about the 1735 libel trial of Peter Zenger.  Zenger had printed negative editorials about William Cosby, the British governor of New York colony.  Under British law, all that needed to be established was that Zenger had printed something negative about a representative of the British government.  Zenger won his case and was found innocent because the American jury refused to follow British law.  They ruled that Zenger was innocent because the things he printed about Cosby were true. The case is still considered to be a landmark both for its establishment of a distinctly American legal precedent and because it was one of the first glimmerings of what would eventually become the American Revolution.)

http://www.founderspatriots.org/article ... zenger.htm

So, anyway...good luck dayecon.

It would be wise, however, to confine online statements about Ebay sellers to straightforward statements of fact.

Mark   8)


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 3:59 am 
 

^^^ Well, that one is going to be difficult to follow.  :)

A brief bit of DAYECON humor: in an email exchange I had with him, he referred to his (alleged) "slander lawsuit." There's only three problems with this:

1. In his original email to Foul, he is (allegedly) bringing suit for some form of copyright nonsense, not slander. So he can't even keep his make-believe lawsuits straight.

2. Slander is generally considered to be spoken. The word he was looking for was "libel."

3. Despite a direct challenge, he was unable to provide me with a single shred of proof that a company or a lawsuit even exists. Not one single link to one single webpage. Not an address. Not an email address. Not another person in the company I could contact (he said it has "16 employees"). Not a fax, photocopy, or PDF of any legal documents. No proof of incorporation. No proof of ever having registered a trademark.

His only response was to "check with the county clerk." I'm not sure if he meant the county clerk of Middle-Earth, or Narnia, or the 100-Acre Wood, or whatever other make-believe land this legal action exists in.

It's beyond pathetic, really.

+++++

Anybody have next Monday off from work? If so, you could kill 15 minutes by calling the Clerk of the Court for Spokane County and seeing if they'll give you any information. :)

(509) 477-2211

http://www.spokanecounty.org/clerk/

 WWW  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6455
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 10, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:35 am 
 

First off, its obvious that this asshat is still monitoring the site as eveidenced by his change in legal tactics. If his attempt to get his name removed from the shady dealers thread was not so absolutely pathetic, it might actually be funny, then again what else would you expect from an whining, crying Emo kid.   Sorry Emo kid, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, maybe you should go cry now like all the other Emo kids do.

Moving on to my point though, despite his now moving target legal tactics(boy that was a surprise wasn't it), he has no more legal chance with a libel suit than he would with his "copyright infringement" & "trademark infringement" lawsuits.  The fact of the matter is, as Beemotor points out above, that in order for him to successfully sue for libel, what was said by people on the site about has to false. If what is being said by people is true, it doesn't matter one iota how nasty or vile it is, it's not libel(or was it slander according to the moronic crying Emo kid :roll: ).  Additionally, it has to be a direct attack on him by the people involved with intention of him losing out finacially because of it.  That's why you can't get sued for slander or libel for calling someone a name, it has to be more than that.  

Sorry, dayeCON, you lose again. :D


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7973
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 03, 2022
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:43 am 
 

bclarkie wrote:First off, its obvious that this asshat is still monitoring the site as eveidenced by his change in legal tactics. If his attempt to get his name removed from the shady dealers thread was not so absolutely pathetic, it might actually be funny, then again what else would you expect from an whining, crying Emo kid.   Sorry Emo kid, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, maybe you should go cry now like all the other Emo kids do.

Moving on to my point though, despite his now moving target legal tactics(boy that was a surprise wasn't it), he has no more legal chance with a libel suit than he would with his "copyright infringement" & "trademark infringement" lawsuits.  The fact of the matter is, as Beemotor points out above, that in order for him to successfully sue for libel, what was said by people on the site about has to false. If what is being said by people is true, it doesn't matter one iota how nasty or vile it is, it's not libel(or was it slander according to the moronic crying Emo kid :roll: ).  Additionally, it has to be a direct attack on him by the people involved with intention of him losing out finacially because of it.  That's why you can't get sued for slander or libel for calling someone a name, it has to be more than that.  

Sorry, dayeCON, you lose again. :D


I don't want to get sued.  Dayecock, I'm sorry for all the alleged stuff I may have said about you while on painkillers this week.....

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  


Prolific Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 245
Joined: Apr 24, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 24, 2008
Location: Georgia, USA

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:38 am 
 

I'm just glad he did all this, it's good that his name got dragged out of the archives to remind us all not to deal with him.  GASP!  If he had not done this lawsuit joke, some of us might have forgotten his shady ways and accidently dealt with him.

Any publicity is good publicity eh??   :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 339
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Last Visit: May 17, 2022
Location: 8000 feet below the summit of Pikes Peak, Colorado

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:37 am 
 

Bclarkie, you just referred to "Emo kid[s]".  I don't understand the reference; what IS an "Emo kid"?

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3800
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 16, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:43 am 
 

I think Brian's referring to that irritating asshole of a character from the 1980's or so who had a whiny tv show that made you want to kick in the front of your tv every time it came on.


Let mirth prevail!

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 339
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Last Visit: May 17, 2022
Location: 8000 feet below the summit of Pikes Peak, Colorado

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:45 am 
 

Something like "Countdown" with Keith Olberman??

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3800
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 16, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:52 am 
 

Easy there, Chief.  He's one of my favorites.   :D

Okay, I can see he can be irritating at times, though.  But I'm glad he's out there.


Let mirth prevail!

  


Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6455
Joined: Dec 13, 2004
Last Visit: Sep 10, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:58 am 
 

sleepyCO wrote:Bclarkie, you just referred to "Emo kid[s]".  I don't understand the reference; what IS an "Emo kid"?


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28slang%29

If this asshat isn't Emo, no one is.


"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Neitzche

  


Active Collector

Posts: 82
Joined: Apr 25, 2004
Last Visit: Nov 12, 2021

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 2:09 pm 
 

Thanks for the link, BC.  This may be the funniest thing I have seen in ages, quoted from the first site:

1. Girls say they like "sensitive guys" (lie)
2. Guy finds out, so he listens to faggy emo music and dresses like a dork so chicks will see that he is sensitive and not afraid to express himself (lie). He dyes his hair black, wraps himself in a stupid looking scarf, develops an eating disorder, and rants about how "nobody understands".
3. Now an emo guy, he meets Emo chick and they start dating, talking about how their well-off suburban lifestyles are terrible and depressing (lie)
4. Emo guy is just too much of a pussy. His penis is too small, he's too depressed to bathe, and has more mood swings than emo chick, and he doesn't even have a menstrual cycle. Emo chick dumps him, saying "It's not you, it's me." (lie) as she drives off with Wayne, the school jock and captain of the football team.
5. Emo guy goes home and cries, proceeds to write a weak song and strum a single string on his acoustic guitar. Another emo chick sees how he is so in touch with his feelings, and the cycle continues.


I know these kids from my school teaching days, but I did not know they had a name.  :lol:  :lol:

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5669
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 29, 2022
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 6:23 pm 
 

I must be an omE guy. I shave my head, wear shorts and t-shirt in winter, eat whatever I want whenever I want, and don't give a fuck about anyone's opinions. Never had any problems picking up women.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3800
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 16, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:38 pm 
 

All well and good, brothers, but here's the little bastard that started it all.

The original Emo.  Remember this guy?  I bet none of today's emos were even born when his show was on.

Now tell me, what does this picture make you feel like doing?  

Image


Let mirth prevail!

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 339
Joined: Sep 09, 2006
Last Visit: May 17, 2022
Location: 8000 feet below the summit of Pikes Peak, Colorado

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:52 pm 
 

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!  8O  8O  I'm going . . . BLIND!! :evil:

OK, now "I smmellll . . . what the Rock . . . is . . . cooking!"; who IS the joker in the photo? :lol:

  


Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3800
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Last Visit: Jul 16, 2022

Post Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:54 pm 
 

Dude, that IS Emo.  The guy I was referring to a few posts earlier.

Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?  That's what the picture makes ME think...


Let mirth prevail!

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 612, 3, 4, 56