Sweet Marissa, I'm missing your point referencing my post. ?
Harassment - your view please!
- Thread starter PoolRoomTeesCOM
- Start date
Sweet Marissa, I'm missing your point referencing my post. ?
Sorry but...... I ...... Have..... Tooo.....
Was hoping you were going to say the reverse of that!!!! And was going to ask to come watch you shoot....LOL
Sorry couldn't resist that Marissa!
PoolRoomTeesCOM
Banned
Great
The more the better, Actually I would link to you....
Ok... I've said enough here..... But know, all your imput is read.... Thanks to all of you weather for or against - views are appreciated.
I am starting a new venture selling art and t-shirts. Please visit PoolHallPaintings.com and PoolHallTees.com to see my work.
The more the better, Actually I would link to you....
Ok... I've said enough here..... But know, all your imput is read.... Thanks to all of you weather for or against - views are appreciated.
Last edited:
Yeah, we need lawsuits involving crap like this to further tie up our court system and to prove that humans are no longer capable having of rational discussion without the threat of getting lawyers involved!
What's wrong with people these days? This is absolutely stupid! You have two tee shirt vendors that would rather involve themselves in this kind of behavior than to just take care of their respective businesses. Does this make your customer service better? Does this increase revenues and profitability? Does it give you a more positive image with your customers? I would imagine that you have competition that would look forward to both parties wasting their valuable time and resources, so they can sell shirts while you're sitting in court, talking to your attornies, and filing reams of paperwork.
It would take a dullard not to be able to figure the differences between your companies. Neither logo is creative. They simply use objects used in the game to create their ads. Every sport I know of does the same thing, i.e. golf balls used in golf logos, guns used in gun advertisements, etc. Neither one of you "invented this wheel", and do either of you feel that this would have any bearing on whether people actually bought products from you (God, I can't buy a pool shirt from these folks because they don't have pool balls in their logo!)?
Pay attention to your business and it will take care of itself. Be the kind of company that people want to buy from and you'll never have a worry about them finding you! Sensationalism might be just the ticket in Hollywood, but in the real world, I think it just turns people off...
Steve Feld
Phoenix, AZ
What's wrong with people these days? This is absolutely stupid! You have two tee shirt vendors that would rather involve themselves in this kind of behavior than to just take care of their respective businesses. Does this make your customer service better? Does this increase revenues and profitability? Does it give you a more positive image with your customers? I would imagine that you have competition that would look forward to both parties wasting their valuable time and resources, so they can sell shirts while you're sitting in court, talking to your attornies, and filing reams of paperwork.
It would take a dullard not to be able to figure the differences between your companies. Neither logo is creative. They simply use objects used in the game to create their ads. Every sport I know of does the same thing, i.e. golf balls used in golf logos, guns used in gun advertisements, etc. Neither one of you "invented this wheel", and do either of you feel that this would have any bearing on whether people actually bought products from you (God, I can't buy a pool shirt from these folks because they don't have pool balls in their logo!)?
Pay attention to your business and it will take care of itself. Be the kind of company that people want to buy from and you'll never have a worry about them finding you! Sensationalism might be just the ticket in Hollywood, but in the real world, I think it just turns people off...
Steve Feld
Phoenix, AZ
This thread is giving me a guilty pleasure. Fun to watch people fight it out in a public forum 
dave sutton
Banned
our local room (that i worked in at the time) was named billiards on the green. the owner had a legal right to the name atlantic city billiards club or anything containing the "atlantic city" and "billiards" together. a few years back another room opened and called them selves atlantic city billliards. well our owner sued and after a year and many court dates the other place had to change the name.
Last edited:
mongoose-
Banned
No doubt. Absolutly ridiculous... now we are going to get the FBI involved LOL. I'm glad the FBI has nothing better to do than deal with a pool T-Shirt dispute over the internet. No wonder September 11 happened they must have been on a case of internet harassment. But I am sure the lawyers are already going "cha ching". $$$$
PoolRoomTeesCOM
Banned
No doubt. Absolutly ridiculous... now we are going to get the FBI involved LOL. I'm glad the FBI has nothing better to do than deal with a pool T-Shirt dispute over the internet. No wonder September 11 happened they must have been on a case of internet harassment. But I am sure the lawyers are already going "cha ching". $$$$
When People convince companies to remove content they do now own under false accusations - this is a crime.
Last edited:
mongoose-
Banned
Angela,
I know what the Cyber Crime Task Force is. I just don't see where the FBI is relevant in this. Either way good luck to you your site & designs look nice.
Funny how a tune changes when someone gets it effectively stuffed up their A$$!!!
Well before stuffing it anywhere lets get the whole story:
From http://crime.about.com/od/online/a/web_harass.htm
"James Robert Murphy, 38, of Columbia, South Carolina, was sentenced to 5 years of probation, 500 hours of community service, and more than $12,000 in restitution today for two counts of Use of a Telecommunications Device (the internet) with Intent to Annoy, Abuse, Threaten or Harass.
Murphy was indicted in April 2004, for sending harassing emails to Seattle resident Joelle Ligon and to other employees of the City of Seattle. He pleaded guilty to two counts in June 2004. In sentencing Murphy, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Zilly told Murphy he "...did not demonstrate the type of remorse he should under the circumstances."
In his plea agreement, Murphy admitted he had a sporadic romantic relationship with Ligon from 1984-1990. In May of 2002, Murphy began sending dozens of uninvited and harassing emails and facsimile (fax) messages to Ligon and her co-workers. Murphy hid his identity with special email programs and created the "Anti Joelle Fan Club" (AJFC) and repeatedly sent threatening emails from this alleged group.
Murphy disseminated false information about Ligon's background to her co-workers. The harassment escalated over time, with Murphy sending pornographic material and making it appear that Ligon was sending the pornographic material to her co-workers at the City of Seattle. Even after Ligon was able to identify the person harassing her and get a court order barring contact, Murphy violated the order by sending an email denying he was the harasser.
No Remorse From Murphy
In court, Murphy told the Judge what he did was "stupid, hurtful and just plain wrong. I was going though a bad patch in my life. I want to take my lumps and get on with life."
In sentencing Murphy Judge Zilly noted that he was surprised that Murphy "made no effort to indicate your remorse to the victim, to indicate you were sorry." The Judge noted that he had received a letter from Joelle Ligon unlike any he had ever received from a crime victim.
In it Ligon asked the Judge to impose "an effective and compassionate sentence." Judge Zilly decided to impose 500 hours of community service instead of the 160 hours requested by the government. He ordered Murphy to pay $12,297.23 to the City of Seattle to compensate the City for 160 hours of work time lost by employees dealing with the harassment.
Task Force Targets Cyber Crime
This case was investigated by the Northwest Cyber Crime Task Force, composed of the FBI, United States Secret Service, Internal Revenue Service, Seattle Police Department, and Washington State Patrol. The NWCCTF investigates Cyber-related violations including criminal computer intrusions, intellectual property theft, child pornography and internet fraud.
The Task Force brings federal, state and local law enforcement agencies together to share intelligence and conduct joint investigations.
This case is believed to be the first federal prosecution of cyber harassment in the United States. Assistant United States Attorney Kathryn A. Warma is
prosecuting the case."
Me thinks there are some small subtle differences between this first of its kind prosecution for harassment and threatening of a city employee and our little t-shirt battle royale here.
I wonder if that city employee chick maybe had a brother/cousin/sister/mom/dad/friend on or near that task force?
Last edited:
First, I'm NOT FLAMING either of you, just thinking out loud and offering a thought...
I have ZERO interest in taking any side in this matter.
Not really knowing either of you or your websites...
Im just curious how much business this thread may or may not have cost you. With ~1200 views already from this thread... presumably all from people who are either well connected in the industry, pool fanatics (your core customer base?) and or room owners who may be able to/want to stock both of your respective merchandise lines...
I have to wonder if the existance of this thread in the location you've chosen to put it, is not in both of your WORST interests.
Using me (your core demographic) as a un-bias sampling....
After reading this thread, I leave this thinking I have no interest in doing business with either of you.
Again, I stress... Im not flaming!
I'm simply offering a possible viewpoint of the damage this thread could be/could have cost both of you. I have to wonder about the wisdom of your chosen venue for airing this dispute.
Best regards,
~D4\/\/G~
I have ZERO interest in taking any side in this matter.
Not really knowing either of you or your websites...
Im just curious how much business this thread may or may not have cost you. With ~1200 views already from this thread... presumably all from people who are either well connected in the industry, pool fanatics (your core customer base?) and or room owners who may be able to/want to stock both of your respective merchandise lines...
I have to wonder if the existance of this thread in the location you've chosen to put it, is not in both of your WORST interests.
Using me (your core demographic) as a un-bias sampling....
After reading this thread, I leave this thinking I have no interest in doing business with either of you.
Again, I stress... Im not flaming!
I'm simply offering a possible viewpoint of the damage this thread could be/could have cost both of you. I have to wonder about the wisdom of your chosen venue for airing this dispute.
Best regards,
~D4\/\/G~
Last edited:
Agreed, and I again go to my original statement about this not really being something that should be on the forum.
AZHousepro...can we get a ruling on this? It'd be in their best interest if this was removed and nobody spoke of it again...Unless the FBI shows up at my house asking me what I saw. :embarrassed2: (..couldn't help it...)
PoolRoomTeesCOM
Banned
FYI.... My last post just shows the FBI does get involved.
Some Facts......
Premeditation
Premeditation means: the presence of planning and organization.
Not all harassment is premeditated. Some may be the result of a sudden emotional outburst, where someone loses their temper with you and lashes out at you electronically. This may indeed cause you distress but could not be called premeditated, since the attack was sudden and not planned.
Some kinds of harassment can be set in motion instantly and without preparation. Others take time to prepare. Some require the setting up and use of special hostile computer attack programs. Others may require extensive research into your personal information on the Internet. The nature of the harassment you are experiencing will often tell you if you are dealing with a premeditated attack or an unplanned passionate outburst.
Repetition
Repetition means: the harassment is not just a single isolated incident.
Repetition is a key feature of online stalking. A one off attack online, while it may cause you distress, could not be described as cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is a course of conduct that takes place over a period of time and involves repeated attempts to cause you distress. Some laws even define it as involving two or more incidents and following a repetitive pattern.
Distress
Distress means: the activity causes fear and distress to you the target.
You could not claim cyberstalking or even online harassment if you do not feel distressed in some way. Distress can take many forms, from annoyance, offense, inconvenience and humiliation to worry and fear for your safety. The presence of fear is an important of characteristic cyberstalking.
You also need to be careful that you are yourself not overreacting. In legal terms, stalking is usually defined as a course of conduct that causes a "reasonable person" to be in distress. You may react in a paranoid or hysterical way to something that is said or done online, but you can not claim cyberstalking unless you can also show that your reaction is "reasonable", i.e., that any other reasonable person would react in the same way.
To show a court that you suffered distress as a result of online stalking you really need the testimony of expert witnesses - these could be your doctor or counselor who you went to for help or medication concerning the incident. If you don't go for medical help regarding your distress then expect the stalkers lawyer to suggest to the court that you were not really that distressed at all.
Obsession
Obsession means: the stalker cannot stop, despite warnings.
To establish this behavior you would need to have given a very clear warning to the harasser to leave you alone. Obsessive behavior is common both in hate vendettas against you and also in what is known as "love obsession" stalking, where the stalker believes themselves to be in love with their target. For love obsession stalkers your "NO" means "YES".
It is a common occurrence for stalkers to violate restraining orders and probation, or even lose their jobs, to continue stalking the object of their obsession.
Vendetta
Vendetta means: the stalker seeks revenge against you.
Hate vendettas are a common cause of harassment online. Stalkers and harassers often convince themselves that you have deserved their hostile attention and that they are in the right. They often persuade themselves that you have committed a great wrong and that they are in the position of avenger, punishing you for your crimes. Revenge may be sought for no reasonable offense at all.
No Legitimate Purpose
No legitimate purpose means: the harassment has no valid purpose, other than to terrorize you and cause you distress.
Some stalkers persuade themselves that they have just cause to harass you, usually on the grounds that you deserve to be punished for some wrong they claim you have committed. Other stalkers have no announced purpose other than to make you suffer. In either case the stalking serves no legitimate purpose.
If however you started the problem by attacking someone else online, and now they are after you for revenge, then your original and unprovoked attack could be used in court to show that the stalker had a legitimate purpose in harassing you.
Some Facts......
Premeditation
Premeditation means: the presence of planning and organization.
Not all harassment is premeditated. Some may be the result of a sudden emotional outburst, where someone loses their temper with you and lashes out at you electronically. This may indeed cause you distress but could not be called premeditated, since the attack was sudden and not planned.
Some kinds of harassment can be set in motion instantly and without preparation. Others take time to prepare. Some require the setting up and use of special hostile computer attack programs. Others may require extensive research into your personal information on the Internet. The nature of the harassment you are experiencing will often tell you if you are dealing with a premeditated attack or an unplanned passionate outburst.
Repetition
Repetition means: the harassment is not just a single isolated incident.
Repetition is a key feature of online stalking. A one off attack online, while it may cause you distress, could not be described as cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is a course of conduct that takes place over a period of time and involves repeated attempts to cause you distress. Some laws even define it as involving two or more incidents and following a repetitive pattern.
Distress
Distress means: the activity causes fear and distress to you the target.
You could not claim cyberstalking or even online harassment if you do not feel distressed in some way. Distress can take many forms, from annoyance, offense, inconvenience and humiliation to worry and fear for your safety. The presence of fear is an important of characteristic cyberstalking.
You also need to be careful that you are yourself not overreacting. In legal terms, stalking is usually defined as a course of conduct that causes a "reasonable person" to be in distress. You may react in a paranoid or hysterical way to something that is said or done online, but you can not claim cyberstalking unless you can also show that your reaction is "reasonable", i.e., that any other reasonable person would react in the same way.
To show a court that you suffered distress as a result of online stalking you really need the testimony of expert witnesses - these could be your doctor or counselor who you went to for help or medication concerning the incident. If you don't go for medical help regarding your distress then expect the stalkers lawyer to suggest to the court that you were not really that distressed at all.
Obsession
Obsession means: the stalker cannot stop, despite warnings.
To establish this behavior you would need to have given a very clear warning to the harasser to leave you alone. Obsessive behavior is common both in hate vendettas against you and also in what is known as "love obsession" stalking, where the stalker believes themselves to be in love with their target. For love obsession stalkers your "NO" means "YES".
It is a common occurrence for stalkers to violate restraining orders and probation, or even lose their jobs, to continue stalking the object of their obsession.
Vendetta
Vendetta means: the stalker seeks revenge against you.
Hate vendettas are a common cause of harassment online. Stalkers and harassers often convince themselves that you have deserved their hostile attention and that they are in the right. They often persuade themselves that you have committed a great wrong and that they are in the position of avenger, punishing you for your crimes. Revenge may be sought for no reasonable offense at all.
No Legitimate Purpose
No legitimate purpose means: the harassment has no valid purpose, other than to terrorize you and cause you distress.
Some stalkers persuade themselves that they have just cause to harass you, usually on the grounds that you deserve to be punished for some wrong they claim you have committed. Other stalkers have no announced purpose other than to make you suffer. In either case the stalking serves no legitimate purpose.
If however you started the problem by attacking someone else online, and now they are after you for revenge, then your original and unprovoked attack could be used in court to show that the stalker had a legitimate purpose in harassing you.
Me neither. But I can't help but think there have been some sympathy sales generated in support of both sides as a result of this thread. LOL.
Last edited:
First, you lose credibility for your continued references to the FBI. I'm not the first person to point this out.
Second, you compare a trademark/copyright dispute with what James R Murphy did? If you truly believe it's even in the same ballpark (it's not) then you are such an irrational person, there is no point in having a conversation with you.
Don't throw around words like "abuse, threaten, harass" so freely. Don't compare someone who disputes ownership of a logo or business name with someone who intentionally tries to inflict pain and suffering and impersonating another's identity.
I don't have a clue if you or pooltees will win out the trademark/copyright issue but I do know that one of you is handling it in a straightforward manner and the other is using a lot of hyperbole.
In terms of your peace of mind, the single best thing you could do is change the domain and logo.
It might offend your sense of right and wrong, you might feel like it's "caving in" to a "bully" (like others, I don't see it as bullying but nevermind), but in terms of money and hassle it makes the most sense.
A new domain will cost you 20 bucks, and a new logo maybe 50 depending on who you want to pay to do it.
Fighting it will cost you real money and there's a 50/50 chance you will lose and be forced to pay for those changes anyway. Maybe a worse than 50/50 chance depending on just how similar the logos are. It's a common idea, but the look and feel of the idea might be similar enough to trigger that "hey, that looks very familiar" response in people (including a judge or whoever is going to deal with this).
You can have it all go away, guaranteed, for under a hundred bucks, or you can spend several hundred and throw away hours of your life.
It might offend your sense of right and wrong, you might feel like it's "caving in" to a "bully" (like others, I don't see it as bullying but nevermind), but in terms of money and hassle it makes the most sense.
A new domain will cost you 20 bucks, and a new logo maybe 50 depending on who you want to pay to do it.
Fighting it will cost you real money and there's a 50/50 chance you will lose and be forced to pay for those changes anyway. Maybe a worse than 50/50 chance depending on just how similar the logos are. It's a common idea, but the look and feel of the idea might be similar enough to trigger that "hey, that looks very familiar" response in people (including a judge or whoever is going to deal with this).
You can have it all go away, guaranteed, for under a hundred bucks, or you can spend several hundred and throw away hours of your life.
Are you serious?
Vendetta?
Stalker?
Obsession?
Really?
Wow.
LOL...this thread has officially entered the twilight zone. Somebody post a picture of a little dog dumping on something.