Click Official ELI Links
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support | ELI Legal Representation Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.

Author Topic: Tape Recording Conversations  (Read 17224 times)

Oscar Michelen

  • ELI Legal Warrior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
    • View Profile
    • Courtroom Strategy
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2012, 07:07:39 PM »
Peeved - great find from the old Laugh-In show. As usual, SG is on the money with his response. If you always say that the conversation is being recorded (and have that be recorded as well) you will be covered if they elect to continue to talk to you after having heard the message.   

SoylentGreen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2012, 07:23:33 PM »
Thanks Oscar!!

You know it's good that Getty Images has a guy like Tim McCormack to polish those turd extortion letters into something that "sounds threatening".

He's even marketing his own brand of "turd polish":

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/332/timothymccormackcopyrig.jpg

S.G.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 08:21:02 PM by Matthew Chan »

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2012, 07:28:11 PM »
And the "cringe factor" continues..... ;D ;D

Who could forget Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In". Oscar remembers!

Funny stuff!
 ;D

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2012, 07:31:10 PM »
OMG! That was to funny, thanks for posting that Peeved!  You made my day. :) :)
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • ExtortionLetterInfo
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #19 on: June 17, 2012, 08:05:11 PM »
not a question of forgetting, it's an age thing!! lol somehow I think I might be on trouble now.. I actually remember Laugh In, Goldie Hwan Never looked so good, nor did "Geraldine"!

And the "cringe factor" continues..... ;D ;D

Who could forget Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In". Oscar remembers!

Funny stuff!
 ;D
Most questions have already been addressed in the forums, get yourself educated before making decisions.

Any advice is strictly that, and anything I may state is based on my opinions, and observations.
Robert Krausankas

I have a few friends around here..

Mulligan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2012, 08:05:28 PM »
Who could forget Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In". Oscar remembers!

Funny stuff!
 ;D

Peeved, you're showing your age.

Bring back the Smothers Brothers, too. :)

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2012, 08:12:57 PM »
Peeved, you're showing your age.

Bring back the Smothers Brothers, too. :)

Hey...KIDS can remember stuff too ya know! lol!!!

Yup...Smothers Brothers, Carol Burnett, Harvey Korman, Tim Conway too!
 ;D

April Brown (AuctionApril)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
    • AprilBrown.com
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2012, 08:26:42 PM »
MORE COWBELL!!

Moe Hacken

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 465
  • We have not yet begun to hack
    • View Profile
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2012, 10:16:44 PM »
I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees

April Brown (AuctionApril)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
    • AprilBrown.com
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2012, 10:45:19 PM »
 ;D ;D ;D

Peeved

  • Guest
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #25 on: June 18, 2012, 11:17:08 PM »
Here's More Cowbell...

Kinda long but ya gotta see the end...


 ;D ;D
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 11:44:09 PM by Peeved »

Greg Troy (KeepFighting)

  • ELI Defense Team Member
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
    • Yeah, We Do That.
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #26 on: June 18, 2012, 11:39:05 PM »
That was one of my favorite shows, I laughed so hard watching that clip I think my ribs are going o be sore tomorrow.  Thank you Peeved  :) :) :)

Here's More Cowbell...

 ;D ;D
Every situation is unique, any advice or opinions I offer are given for your consideration only. You must decide what is best for you and your particular situation. I am not a lawyer and do not offer legal advice.

--Greg Troy

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2012, 06:40:42 PM »
I made a mistake in saying only Oscar got a copy of McCormack's letter. I received mine today from Attorney Timothy B. McCormack. However, I will be starting an all-new thread once I post my copy of the letter.
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

Matthew Chan

  • ELI Founder, "Admin-on-Hiatus"
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • 1st Amendment & Section 230 CDA Advocate
    • View Profile
    • Defiantly
I'm a non-lawyer but not legally ignorant either. Under the 1st Amendment, I have the right to post facts & opinions using rhetorical hyperbole, colloquialisms, metaphors, parody, snark, or epithets. Under Section 230 of CDA, I'm only responsible for posts I write, not what others write.

lucia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Tape Recording Conversations
« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2014, 12:07:36 PM »
This post is stale but I wanted to update something I wrote long ago:

Here's the thing. You already know that "the copyright cow" probably doesn't like some people. And he might not mind "getting" some people. If you taped him in violation of laws of the State of Washington, and he found out, it would not be surprising if he tried to use the information of that illegal behavior to "get" the person who did the taping.

I already said I, myself, wouldn't tape without asking.  But certainly, I wouldn't tape in violation of the law if I thought it would give an enemy who wants to "get" me an axe to chop my head off. Why give them a weapon?

I live in Illinois. Back when I wrote this, Illinois itself was a "two party consent" state.  So my recording without getting permission from the other party would have been viewed as violating law in my own state not just potentially that of the other state if the call came from somewhere like WA state.   This has changed.

In March 2014, the Illinois State Court decreed that Illinois's two party consent statute violated the US Constitutions 1st amendment.

The digital media law project writes: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/illinois-recording-law
Quote
In People v. Melongo, Docket No. 114852 (Ill. Mar. 20, 2014), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Illinois' two-party eavesdropping statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1, -2 (scroll down), was unconstitutional on its face. The statute made it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation, regardless of whether the parties had an expectation of privacy. The Court held that the recording provisions of the statute, as written, adversely affected the First Amendment rights of people making recordings in a substantial number of circumstances where there were no legitimate privacy interests.  The Court further held that a provision of the statute prohibiting the disclosure of recordings likewise ran afoul of the First Amendment.


The Illinois Supreme Court doesn't speak for other states so I would still not record calls from WA state without permission. However, if the argument that a 2 party consent law violates the US 1st amendment, it's possible such an argument could prevail in other States that have similar laws.

That said: it is also worth nothing that exception clauses exist in some 2-party consent laws-- even those from WA state. For example the WA state law (which might apply to calls from a Seattle based office like Tim McCormacks) states"


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

Quote
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

So, in WA, it appears that if the call involves unlawful requests or demands recording 2party consent is no longer required; the same holds if calls are made 'repeatedly". Of course, we can all argue about whether the demands for money made on various calls alleging copyright infringement are or are not unlawful or whether they are of sufficient frequency to be deemed "repeatedly". But if the person recorded were to lodge a complaint, they would need to defend their demands as being lawful and calls as not being done 'repeatedly', as if either of those two apply, recording becomes 1 party consent.

I don't know if it's illegal to represent a claim as a debt, but I wouldn't be surprised if a judge frowned on such that sort of spurious claim. I also would not be surprised if a judge didn't see more than one or two phone unsolicited calls pressing someone to pay a copyright claim as potentially being "repeated".  I know I would see three as certainly falling in the category of "repeated".

Those who do receive such call might wish to look up laws in various states to see if the state has 1 party or 2 party consent. If it falls under 2 party consent, carefully check whether their recording doesn't fall under an exception to 2 party consent. Obviously, one can't check prior to the first call, but one can do so after the first call. A second or third call might easily characterized as "repeated"-- though that is a risk the person electing to record would be taking.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2014, 03:51:59 PM by lucia »

 

Official ELI Help Options
Get Help With Your Extortion Letter | ELI Phone Support Call | ELI Defense Letter Program
Show your support of the ELI website & ELI Forums through a PayPal Contribution. Thank you for supporting the ongoing fight and reporting of Extortion Settlement Demand Letters.