Slashdot Mirror
EFF Forces DMCA Abuser to Apologize
destinyland writes "The EFF just announced victory over a serial abuser of DMCA copyright notices. To set an example, their settlement required Michael Crook to record a video apology to the entire internet for interfering with free speech. He's also required to withdraw every bogus DMCA notice, and refrain from future bogus notices, never contest the original image again, and take a remedial class on copyright law.
He'd attempted to use flaws
in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online — but instead the whole thing backfired."
Who will own the copyright to the apology video?
The last link seems dead already.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Nothing like a blank apology to say you're sorry.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
He'd attempted to use flaws in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online
That's it? They finally get a serial abuser of the DMCA to apologize, and it's just some guy with a nudie picture that he didn't want people to see? How about getting an **AA or something to apologize for *really* infringing on free speech/expression?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Since the guy appears to have made knowingly false statements under penalty of perjury clause of the DCMA when will the DA file the criminal charges????
No sir I dont like it.
Isn't it ironic - not only that a very large number of people will see his picture because he was an &^*hole, but also that the site that he apparently tried to have taken down, is offline (presumably due to the /. effect or because it was linked to by other sites).
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Don't?!
Shit, I'm in trouble!
The enemies of Democracy are
Lip service is infinitely cheap. As long as we're living in a nation which is d0minated by artificially created taxpayer debt you'll never see a significant victory over the organizations which help to maintain that debt.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
He got off easy. The original settlement required that he be sodomized by a Clydesdale.
apology to the entire internet
I think he should be banned from the internet, hey they did it to mitnick.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Today a single someone... Tomorrow the RIAA and MPAA!!!
(Yeah... Sardonic and resigned...)
The best apologies are the ones that are forced by court order.
BTW, here's a good indicator of how sincere he is: http://www.stopfairuse.info/
Disclaimer: IANAL
:-)
But back when we had lawyers from the Copyright Office interviewed on Slashdot, they said that the perjury provisions are only applicable to the statement that whoever sends them actually represents the (alleged) copyright holder. In other words, all Crook was swearing to under perjury was that he represented himself. The way it would actually come into play was if, say, he had pretended to represent Fox News (or whoever *actually* owned the copyrights) and then filed DMCA notices under their name with YouTube to get those video clips taken down.
That said, I think they *should* put up some kind of penalty for frivilous DMCA Takedown Notices, but if there is any such thing, I haven't seen it litigated. I loved that he had to agree to take a course on copyright law, though. Creative settlements at their best! I wonder if they mandated that he had to *pass* the course, though?
Lastly, in a completely offtopic note, am I the only one who is now picturing this guy holding a press conference to announce "I am not a Crook!"?
... with shallow pockets. Once the precedent is established you use it to go after people (scumbags or otherwise) with deeper pockets.
That's why prosecutors start a child molester, if possible, when they're prosecuting the first case under a new censorship law.
Works just as well for the good guys:
- Start with some idiot who both exposed himself in public as part of a scam and used bogus DMCA takedown notices. Get the precedent established that bogus DMCA takedown notices are wrong and you can be punished for them.
- Next go after somebody who used bogus takedown notices without exposing himself or committing other previous (but somehow related) scams, but DID cause a bunch of financial and/or other damage by his activities. Establish that he has to pay for the damage plus a penalty.
- THEN take on the MAFIAA.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's like an abducted child asking to be taken off the back of a milk carton or those have-you-seen-me mailings for DMCA violations. If they wouldn't have gone and gotten themselves kidnapped, this wouldn't have happened.
Thusly: if he didn't have naked pictures of himself on the internet, there wouldn't be naked pictures of himself on the internet.
Go ahead and "-1, distasteful" me... I deserve it.
... just post a link to the embarrassing picture in question ? I don't care about TFA being slashdotted, I just want to make fun of the idiot.
:wq
For anyone who missed the original article it's all about this image which is not owned by Michael.
It's not even that bad...hehe.
Something is just not right about this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ynU3cQ9Ps
What's wrong with his hair?.. hmm, just doesn't look right.
http://www.michaelcrook.org/contact.html
More seriously, these apologies do nothing useful. They just build resentment and I bet he's thinking: "I'll get you fuquers! Payback shall be mine!"
Engineering is the art of compromise.
He wants to stop fair use, but I'm guessing he doesn't hold the copyright for the picture of Emma Watson that he used in this post on his blog
Seriously, does anyone believe someone named 'CROOK' will do _anything_ honestly, even under court order?
I didn't know who the guy was so I looked him up.
Man's a creep. So he posts pictures of men he baits on craiglist posing as a woman but his image should be considered off limits? Hypocrite, to say the least.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Every action has a reaction. Play with the bull, get the horns. Crap, I just ran out of clichés.
For those who can't access 10zenmonkey, you can read a short blurb here.
Not sure why he got all worked up for that picture anyway. I look way worse on most of my photos. And usually with my eyes closed.
No sig
I can see why he wanted his photo removed permanently from the 'net: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/02/michael_crook _sends_.html
It could have been worse. Just image Goatse's video apology. (shudder!)
Viacom!
Do you have ESP?
what a scumbag. He's creator of http://www.stopfairuse.info/
Just what we need, He's bitching the the DMCA doesn't go FAR enough. He goes on national TV, and complains someone snapped a shot of it. Scumbag.
That said, I think they *should* put up some kind of penalty for frivilous DMCA Takedown Notices, but if there is any such thing, I haven't seen it litigated.
Maybe EFF is doing this to call attention to the flimsiness of DMCA takedown notices? Odds are I could get your accounts suspended right now if I sent your ISP a DMCA take-down notice without any backing.
If people know this is going on they might think twice about acting like that. Hopefully it gets the attention of their corporate attorneys.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I *hope* that people are seeing consequences for frivolous uses of the legal system, but unfortunately it's all too rare that I hear about them being stopped like this :(
Actually, I wonder why people haven't sued for whatever losses they've suffered as a result of misguided or wrong notices? I'm guessing they couldn't find any actual damages that were worth enough to sue over, but it's still a pain in the ass.
Is that Skeletor?
I'm going to have nightmares tonight.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Humm, well, OK then -- Michael Crook says he's sorry. I'm just so thrilledto have this new information. I guess this is a victory for some website having to do with monkeys, and FOX News is somewhere in there too. Gee, well, huh. So there it is then. All right. Swell. Thanks.
On second thought, can I have back the five minutes of my life I just wasted watching this apology?
Just posted a comment on that post, asking if he'd be willing to pay the copyright holder of that photo of Emma in order to make use of it. Will be interesting to see if he approves it.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
This guy is a bare faced liar. He does not seem to have learned a bit about basic decency and continues to remain the perfect example of a "griefer".
"I had an honest belief that one could control their image when it was used contrary to the original intent"
And what was the original intent of the posters Crook tricked into giving their private pictures. It is unbelievable that he expects people to believed all this while doing the exact opposite. He must live in some kind of bizzaro world.
"Who knew you can't control your own image?"
Wasn't it the same confidence that one can't, that allowed him to do this in the first place? And yet when it comes to him the rules don't apply.
"The appearance on Hannity and Colmes was very embarrassing for me"
And I thought all along that he did not know the meaning of embarrassment. Or maybe, he just lacked empathy. For those out of the loop, he called the troops "scumbags" and "pukes" on his web site for which he was called to the show where he was completely unprepared to give any valid response. Other quotes from Crook on the soldiers - "What idiots risk their life for a country...? Let 'em die in combat - we don't need their ilk in this country!".
"I firmly believe that he chose the photograph in an attempt to attack and unduly humiliate me"
Unlike his compassionate treatment his victims? Crook said "he's enjoying exposing the perverts" and "pathetic men".
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law. It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission. But make no mistake about it. If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Sure she's attractive, but that's just disgusting!
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Here's some Michale Crook fun at Fark: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink =2390696
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Your parents, on the other hand....
emt 377 emt 4
he doesn't look that bad!
Just looking at his post regarding this. I wonder if theres now a libel case given the slander he openly and directly makes.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed this little discrepancy in his "logic".
Someone should do a Wikipedia page on him. Net kooks hate that, coz they can't control what is says. LOL!
No, it's Colmes. Or did you mean...
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Hey, everybody! Look at this -- it's that boy who throws DMCA takedown notices at everyone. Let's laugh at him!
This sig intentionally left blank.
My mother was a DMCA abuser you insensitive clod!
Getting yourself off and jail are not mutually exclusive. It happens all the time in prison. Usually some guy named bubba is even there to help you!
"People once believed that when someone dies, a crow carries their soul to the land of the dead. But sometimes, something so bad happens that a terrible sadness is carried with it and the soul can't rest. Then sometimes, just sometimes, the crow can bring that soul back to put the wrong things right."
http://edified.org/external/crook
hahahahahaha
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
Here's a link to the bogus DMCA takedown notice he sent out. http://www.boingboing.net/images/dmca-boing-boing- nov-1.doc
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Please invite Mr. Crook to an interview, talking about the apology and his views on the abolishment of fair use rights. I think we all need a good vocal idiot to tear apart right about now.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Has anybody actually read what he says in his blog?
) screenshot of his:
Taken from http://www.michaelcrook.org/thedmcacase.html, where he's talking about this (http://www.michaelcrook.org/extrafiles/crook.jpg
"And hey, I rather like this screenshot. It makes me look like Hitler and shit. Cool beans-- it was exactly the statement I was trying to make."
I'm still sitting here with my jaw hanging down after having read this! I think not only should he be sent to a basic lesson of copyright law, but also to a history lesson focussing on WW2!
In the cases above, and even your newspaper example, the work is being used as part of a commercial work. Newspapers sell ads. Therefore, the paper is making a profit off of my image.
It's called "editorial use," and that's a specific case. An image that illustrates news or editorial information is different than an image that is sold as the image. So, selling a poster of you is different than publishing an article about you that happens to include your image. It's a little vague, because it has to be, but most people know editorial usage when they see it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What do you have against Bronson Pinchot, who has been acting since his role as Balki?
Many people pooh-pooh the distinction, but I think this is a perfect case. He has no *guilt* for what he's done: he doesn't feel badly about any of it because he thinks everything he did was justified. He has tremendous *shame* being heaped on him because everyone else can see that he's a bottom-feeding hypocrite. He is embarrassed because he's ashamed.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Wow. This guy realy is desparate to make a name for himself. So much that his website is clearly a desparate attempt to make his name a household name, and one that is something people will talk about like he is some kind of hero.
Ironically, the settlement was a bigger, more effective takedown than his notices were.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
It's good to see that he has learned his lesson, instead of revelling in the destruction caused by the inefficiencies of the legal system.
What a seriously evil asshole.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
wget blip.tv/file/get/10zenmonkeys-DearInternetImSorry6 75.flv
...isn't from slashdot. It's the last part of this page:
"I can foresee a day when this community of nihilistic pranksters hold its first convention, and they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool."
I can't stand Crook's misuse of the word "myself" in the video. I bet his lawyers had him put it in to make him sound smarter, though it had the opposite effect:
I: Subject. The person who is doing the action. I went to the doctor's office; Sally and I went to the doctor's office.
Me: Object. The person who is receiving the action. The doctor came to me; the doctor came to Sally and me.
Myself: Reflexive. When you are the receiver of an action you are doing. Nobody else can do something to yourself--THIS IS NOT JUST A FANCY FORM OF "ME"! I touched myself while I was sitting by myself; Sally injured herself.
Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. If it weren't so late, I'd have used examples from the video.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
ssia
As mentioned earlier, the apology was a sham.
On his blog, he returns back to gloating
- that he recorded the video to just get out of the case
- that it didn't cost him much.
- that he got free publicity that would otherwise have cost him
- that he will go back to his old ways.
"but the DMCA is but one of the many tools available these days. This was merely a battle in the war"
http://www.michaelcrook.org/thedmcacase.html
"Whoever creates a work owns the copyright, unless the creator signs away the copyright (in the case of work for hire, etc.) So if I take a picture of you, your dog, even Michael Crook, I own the copyright on that image." IF I am a public figure, I have no right or expectation to privacyy. Should I not be a public figure, or person of note, Then I OWN MY IMAGE and you need a release to publish.
This is NOT rocket science.. If I appear in public, that changes the outcome.
Should have just claimed FOX "stole his sole" and counter-sued (fox white-man have heap magic you know).
Thanks,
Anonymous
I happened to be be in an IRC channel were one also hang out, or claimed to be one anyway, and he was very proud for posting the troll that the GNAA does (or used too).
Yet one day he was ranting about how some guy was wasting his bandwidth on his site by downloading the same thing over and over again.
Griefers, bullies and their like can dish it out but they can't take it. This is absolutly nothing different from criminals who abuse their victims without mercy and then complain when the police is a bit too rough.
But in a way we are lucky in this case, all too easily the press could have just gone the usuall "awh, the poor victim" route and taken his side. See the movie "dead man walking" and wonder why it isn't a two parter, the second part being called "dead woman walking" following the last days of the man's victim.
I am rather bemused by how easily people seem to give up on the idea of privacy however, remember all the outrage about that ousted blogger a few days ago?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you visit Crook's blog page, it shows a video of Emma Watson, with the following caption:
.45 caliber easy-to-swallow kind can cure.
-----
"The new Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," due July 21, will have 12 million copies printed in the first run.
Of course, it will be made into a movie eventually, and one of the stars, to the left, is Emma Watson.
On April 15th, she will be legal in New York State, where the age of consent is 17.
Just sayin' is all. She's already legal across the pond."
-----
Being *SUCH* a legal genius, I'm sure Michael knows that just because someone is of the age of consent does not mean that they are not a MINOR.
If this guy is so against perverts, why is he posting crap like that? Explicitly implying to have sex with her, even though she is a M-I-N-O-R ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the guy who went out of his way to humiliate people who went on Craigslst looking for sex? Apparently, looking for sex is morally wrong, yet announcing that at minor has reached the age of consent at 17 and that she "...is legal" is not.
Hmmm.....
Clearly, this poor aminal is in need of medication..... by that only the
The real pathetic part is if you look at the upper-left part of his webwite where is has a less-than-flattering picture of him, with comments next to it. Every time the page reloads, the comments change. I was trying it out just to see what kind of crap he claims people say about him when the following comment appeared right next to his picture:
"'Mike is bringing sexy back!'-- D.B."
Michael Crook: A Living Tribute To Pathetic Wannabees.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
(Have to give credit to an AC buried farther down for pointing out his contact page...)
In addition to the phone # you've provided, here's a fax #: (315) 663-3036
He also seems to use IM a bit, he's got an AIM account (MikeFromSyracuse), an MSN Messenger account (mike@silentmike.us), and a Yahoo account (mikechatcny).
Oh, and his "email me" page doesn't have so much as a CAPTCHA on it.
You should note that I'm not advocating spamming the living shit out of his ugly, pathetic, lying ass. Indeed, I would never even suggest that you do the digital equivalent of ass-raping his ISP with a railroad spike! I'm just blatantly telling you what you need to know, should you ever hypothetically do such a thing, even though you won't, of course. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
There were no nude pics! EVER!
He just made an ass of himself on some TV interview, then tried to prevent them from airing it. He might be close to having a case if he xeroxed his ass or something, but it's not even that close -- it was an interview conducted solely for the purpose of being disseminated, and he knew that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Come on, this is not news. That sierra foxtrot is a non-entity who will resort to whatever it takes to get attention of any polarity.
One would think that Slashdot -- after Fark, Drudge, and the 'internet' had covered this already ad nauseam -- would have chosen to ignore this.
Lets not forget, they also have the cameras...
That's important if you are a politician who has to get re-elected to keep your job.
I don't think he was actually acting in Winning Girls Through Psychic Mind Control
You know the guy is one of those people who don't care if the publicity is good or bad, as long as it's publicity.
That said, isn't he a handsome man? I mean considering the horrific stroke he looks like he's suffered.
What's the meaning of the "slashdotted" tag ?
Seriously, he's trolling EVERYONE. The guy is hilarious.
:P
Besides, I bet a lot of you are pissed off because you're creeps who use craigslist to find girls, and you could've been caught by him.
I loved that whole craigslist thing, those idiots who got caught by him had it coming.
Being a film and television producer who deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis, I should point out the errors in your post. If what you're claiming were true every paparazzo would be up to their necks in litigation, since making money off unauthorized photos is their business.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law.
It isn't part of copyright law at all: people's faces are not subject to copyright (and if they were, the rights to your face would be owned by your parents, since they commissioned the work, so to speak).
It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission.
Care to cite the clause in copyright legislation or case law that says that?
Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an image by the rights holder in any way at all (where do people keep getting the word "commercial" from? Copyright ownership is neither enhanced or diminished by commercial exploitation). However, if the image is used in a defamatory manner, attributes fake product endorsements or otherwise misrepresents the individual, or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy the individual can sue. A release form is simply an agreement not to sue, and as such falls under contractual law.
Example 1: the NBC "Today" show can do their weather report outside the studio because the assembled audience have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rockerfeller Plaza is a public space). No release forms required, even though individuals are clearly identifiable in a commercial broadcast.
Example 2: watch any news report about obesity that uses footage shot in public, and you'll see people from the neck down. This is because it is apparently defamatory to identify a lard-arse as "fat" (unless they've signed a release like the contestants on "The Biggest Loser").
Example 3: an actor plays a character in a film, but then refuses to sign a release. Does that prevent the film being released? No, because an actor invited onto a film set has no expectation of privacy, and by playing a character they aren't representing themself, thereby eliminating the question of misrepresentation or defamation. The actor could sue claiming that the editing was done in such a way as to make them look incompetent, but then they risk having the unedited footage presented in court and their incompetence proven (BTW, all this is paraphrased from my response to a genuine nastygram I received from an agent, based on advice from two entertainment industry specialist lawyers and a professor of legal studies. No, I don't mess around; getting it wrong could cost me thousands of dollars). Again, copyright doesn't enter into it.
If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
Copyright law does not distinguish between commercial and non-profit use in this regard; whoever owns the rights owns the rights, period. If I make money off a photo of you without your permission you may have a basis to sue if I'd expressly said the photo wasn't for commercial use, but again that's contractual law, not copyright (and even then you only have a claim if your identity is central to the image and you weren't in a public area at the time).
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
There's no law protecting aesthetic sensibilities, so there is no basis for litigation if anyone publishes a legitimately acquired image you find objectionable. "Public interest" is a fair use defence for publication of unauthorised material which must be argued in court if challenged, so wherever possible news outlets try to avoid it.
You were initially right in saying "whoever creates a work owns the
Blank until
Thanks!
If he'd used the right laws (contract vs. copyright) he may have had a case. Not so much to prevent publication, but for a share of any profits being made.
We are the 198 proof..
"Who knew you couldn't control your own image?"
Well, the rest of us did.
Did you go to school? Did you remember there being a bully called Joe or whatever? Joe gets pulled in for bullying. Perhaps he got publicly humilated: "Class, Joe has been very bad. He has something he wants to say to John". Mumble, mumble.... "Soooory John". Ten minutes later when the teacher isn't looking, Joe smacks John.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
More choice tidbits appear in the posts he makes to his own forum. (Note, this copy is, erm, fair use.)
...
"While I will adhere to the terms set forth in the settlement agreement, I should point out that I have no qualms about doing what needs to be done to silence those who dare disagree with me, provided that it doesn't run afoul of the settlement agreement.
But, I don't apologize for my tactics beyond the DMCAs. And I have tons of them. These very same tactics are used by respectable companies and third party "bone crushers" to take care of problems. The problem being those that use critical speech against their respective companies, or in my case, against me.
That can't stand. It just can't.
Companies like Microsoft do it. That makes it okay.
And again, there are many more ways to deal with dissenters besides the DMCA. Many more."
Ye flipping gods kid, take your meds.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Wow. Just fucking wow. I wish I were caught up on my slashdot reading when this article was posted so I could have responded in a timely manner, but as it is I still have four days left to go through. (Spring break'll do that to you, I guess.)
I find the whole situation among the most comical I've seen in months.
> "Who knew you can't control your own image?"
I like this part, and how the camera shot changes during this sentence - it's a brief window into his outrage and disbelief that the law does not function the way he wanted it to. Whereas the rest of the speech is forced by the settlement, this is where he gets to mitigate the damage it did to his ego.
After I watched the full apology video (by the way, I am particularly disgusted at the first commenter in this article and the people who modded him funny), I watched the Hannity and Colmes video and couldn't stop laughing. I honestly do not understand why Crook was embarassed by this video, since Hannity easily overpowered him in his bid to be the King Bastard. I knew political shows were full of crap, but I was always under the belief that they were required to maintain a baseline of decency and abstraction from the core name-calling. I guess modern America doesn't have the capacity to appreciate a well-formed insult. It's rather sad that a man can invite scum onto his show and end up still looking worse by comparison.
I also liked how Crook argues against free speech while employing its ideals. I don't mean in terms of the rhetoric of "Support our troops or give up your rights" - I mean how he is against all forms of fair use and commented that a world full of IP censorship would be utopia.
Well, I had better stop laughing and eat dinner.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.