[DMCForum] Re: My Delorean is for sale *** OOH a threat now***

["therealdmcvegas" <dmcvegas@xxxxxxx>]

Awwwwww, Day-um! You got served, Thomas!

Ryan is right that you wouldn't be able to prove anything in court.
First, you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone's
online post was infact damaging to your auction. Next, you'd need to
prove that whomever you'd be accusing of libel, was infact the one's
who actually are guilty of posting whatever statements you've cited.
You'd need subpoenas from Yahoo! for the originating IP address that
submitted the post/accessed a particular person's account. And you'd
also need a subpoena from his ISP, stating that he did infact lease
said IP address at, said particular time. And even then it's not over.
A person could claim "unsecured WAP", and easily get out of
responsability.

And even then, that's considering that you were able to get a judge
who actually understands all of this. These people don't understand
how to configure Outlook Express, let alone how the fundamentals of
network security. So they'll need a 3rd party expert to come forth and
testify about all this.

Cybercrimes involving the internet are really tricky, because the
current generation in charge of everything is just so damn ignorant
about the whole technology. Plus, it's not as cut and dry as physical
crimes such as wire fraud. In the real world, the rules are set, and
you know how people are going to break them. Once technology becomes
involved as a tool, the posabilities are limitless. Criminals can
think outside of the box to accomplish their deeds in ways that law
enforcement could never have imagined, and sometimes cannot
comprehend. Hence why they always have to get so many damn experts
involved. For you to get into some serious trouble, with an actual
chance of getting punished, you've got to start breaking Federal laws.
And here, we're just dealing with a small claims court type issue.
You'd have to get the physical addresses of those involved, and file
suit(s) in the jurisdictions where THEY reside. And remember, if you
lose, your opponent then has all the evidence they need in order to
countersue you. And in that case, they would be the victor in that case.

So the threat of legal action over the internet is a VERY hollow one.
Not because I'd doubt that you'd have the motivation to do something,
but rather, you'd be quite impotent in your legal abilities to carry
out your desires. It as if you told me that you were going to dig a
cannnal across Florida by yourself, with a single spoon. I've no doubt
of your determination to do so, but I know that it's just not going to
happen.

In order to get a better idea of past proceedings in cases like this,
might a suggesst researching up some of the e-mails of "Leonard J. Crabs".

http://www.somethingawful.com/legal/

Beaterz.com also had a situation just like this a couple years back.
Some dude was selling this custom car he called an "Eldorette". It was
this nasty-ass 70's Corvette, with some Eldorado fenders & front clip
welded to it. This guy was trying to sell it for $50,000. Beaterz.com
reviewed the car, and even dubbed it the "Ultimate White Trash". And
even then in that case, the guy selling the car found that he had no
ground to stand on, when threatening to try and sue for damages
incurred, because the website gave a negative review of his car. There
just isn't any proof.

And besides, no one has said anything negative about your car, other
than just a factual statement about you removing the cooling fans.
Everything else is just an expressed opinion about the cosmetics. So
how do you intend to prove any damages? Even if someone was actively
trying to do you financial harm, you've got no case. How would you
prove that these statements drove down bidding? Assuming you could of
course get a day in court...

-Robert



--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ryan Wright <ryanpwright@xxxx> wrote:
> > Ryan, I gave Joe a warning.  Know the difference.
> 
> There is no difference. Threat is a synonym of warning. In fact, the
> first definition of warning is, "An intimation, threat, or sign of
> impending danger or evil." If you want to argue language, you should
> select an opponent less versed than I.
> 
> Further, there's no use in giving a warning if you aren't prepared to
> back it up. It'd cost you twice what you'll get for the car for a
> lawyer to even think about a lawsuit. Bring it to trial and you'll be
> on the hook for several times more. Not to mention, your case would be
> next to impossible to prove; calculating damages even moreso. You
> might be able to get a judgement for the cost of your eBay fees in
> small claims court if you were very persuasive. Of course, collecting
> would be interesting...
> 
> Recognize that I don't support someone scaring buyers away from your
> car unless you were flat out lying about major issues in your auction.
> Apparently that isn't the case, so therefore any vigilante action
> would be inappropriate in my eyes.
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> On 6/22/05, thomaspaulmccoy <thomaspaulmccoy@xxxx> wrote:
> > Ryan, I gave Joe a warning.  Know the difference.
> > 
> > --- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ryan Wright <ryanpwright@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Don't worry, he doesn't have the money to send lawyers after you.
> > It's
> > > a bullshit threat.
> > >
> > > -Ryan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.