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?
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.
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.
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/
... 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
... 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
He got off easy. The original settlement required that he be sodomized by a Clydesdale.
No Clydesdales were willing to go near him. Even with blinders on. It's the smell, apparently.
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
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
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.