ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Oscar Michelen on June 17, 2012, 03:19:48 PM
-
Dear Forum Members:
On Friday, June 15, 2012, I received a letter from Tim McCormack, one of Getty Image's regular attorneys, informing me that folks on the forums have been suggesting tape recording conversations with him and his staff. I have not seen those suggestions on here, but in an exercise of caution I want to make clear that you cannot tape record a conversation in Washington State (and that means if EITHER party is in Washington State during the conversation) without the consent of BOTH parties to the conversation. While most states are one-party consent states, Washington is one of a handful of states that is a two-party consent state. Recording a conversation in a two-party consent state without one party's consent is a crime, normally called eavesdropping.
So please, please, be careful about recording conversations unless you KNOW where the other person is and what the law is in that State (and the State where the call is coming from) say about whether you need one or two party's consent. Here is a link to a chart showing the law for each of the 50 states:
http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
-
Nice to see Oscar on here again.
Of course, you knew that we'd jump on this immediately.
What's the Copyright Cow worried about?
S.G.
-
Well if nothing else we know the "Copyright Cow" is paying attention..to bad he won't join the conversation...
Bull = male cow, has BALLS
Cow = female cow, has udders or No Balls
(http://www.johnlund.com/cafepress/ImagesCp/cow-udder-picture.jpg)
Oscar's Fathers Day Cringe.. :D
-
oh yeah... cow = female.
Sounds like Tim's a little butthurt.
Let's get him fitted for a tampon immediately.
S.G.
-
Well now isn't this interesting!
How NICE of TBM to help us out on this one by drawing this to Oscar's attention!
THANKS OSCAR!
-
Naturally, he's afraid he won't have his Mr. Rogers voice at the ready..
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KdtMmFDTeXs/Tvx_cgYzUSI/AAAAAAAAEEU/smyZUDA1320/s1600/asshat.jpg)
Nice to see Oscar on here again.
Of course, you knew that we'd jump on this immediately.
What's the Copyright Cow worried about?
S.G.
-
Protip: DO NOT discuss legalities/settlements on the phone with anyone.
S.G.
-
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?
-
Mafia dons hate it when their phone calls get recorded too.
I wonder how copyright trolling lawyer Timothy B. McCormack is making out with the complaints filed against him with the Washington State Bar Association? I sure hope answering the complaints against him and trying to explain what he's doing as a copyright troll isn't eating up too much of his time and peace of mind.
I'm also really sorry to hear that he's now losing serenity over the possibility that someone might record a telephone call from his office. You know, it's weird, but I never worry about someone recording my calls. Perhaps that's because I tell the truth and don't attempt to extract money from people I don't even know.
It is awful, however, that he's fearful and worried that someone might actually hold him or someone from his office to account for words coming out of his law firm.
Thank God he has Oscar's shoulder to cry on!
In closing, below some quick research about what I believe are the penalties for recording a phone call in Washington State without permission from both parties:
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9.73.030(1)(a)
Chapter 9.73 RCW
Privacy, violating right of
Penalties.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[2000 c 195 § 3; 1989 c 271 § 209; 1967 ex.s. c 93 § 6.]
If you want to dig into this more deeply, here's the link:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.73&full=true#9.73.080
-
Good info here!
Here's the link to the thread on ELI:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/recording-copyright-extortion-collection-telephone-calls/msg7512/
If Tim McCormack calls, just say "this conversation may be recorded for quality purposes".
If he doesn't hang up, then everything nice and legal.
However, I'm sure that he didn't send that friendly reminder to Oscar for ELI's benefit... it's for his benefit.
The trolls are now using the phone, because what they've been writing to people has gotten them into hot water.
http://sitelife.runnersworld.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/0/8c7172bb-a766-4321-b06c-421b311aa58c.Medium.jpg
S.G.
-
It looks like ELI is hurting them more as we may think. The big problem for GI is that they use low paid clueless clerks and low level attorneys :). So they have to protect themself against themself:)
Idiots !!
-
Let me set the proper context here. My original post had little to do with McCormack's office although they were casually mentioned in my post. They were more directed to Glen Carner and his new program.
So, we now have an attorney who can't read and interpret properly. Good thing that post is out in the public for everyone to read. Sounds likes Timmy has a guilty conscience or something.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/recording-copyright-extortion-collection-telephone-calls/
You will see that it is MY position on it with the proper context of what I would do. I did not tell anyone to unilaterally record phone conversations on a whim. Nevertheless, I believe there are times in life you do what you need to do in self-defense (or aggressive reporting as I do) to collect the information (evidence) you need.
How many hidden cameras do you see on TV on these news expose's? These expose's were not done with the subject's permission. The second you reveal you are recording, it changes the behavior of the subject you are trying to "catch in the act". Plain and simple.
Anyone can quote stuff like it's illegal and all that. Well, so is speeding 5-mph over the speed limit, talking or texting on cell phones in some states, radar detectors in some states, some sex acts in some states, etc. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not people do these things on a "calculated risk" basis.
I interpret the "eavesdropping" law for to deter people from abusing it, not when you are doing investigative reporting or defending yourself. And how about all the abusive collection agencies calls that have been recorded over the years? I don't think one person ever got prosecuted for recording an abusive call. It is all about CONTEXT and PURPOSE.
Just like the criminal section of the copyright law, it was intended for other infringements, not the small scale stuff we see everyday.
I am not going to try to convince everyone to record phone conversations because different people have different concerns about this. I state my position and everyone else can state their position. But for those of you who don't want to be bullied or being walked on, this is a legitimate tactic. Besides, what prosecutor wants to be known for going after a little guy over a self-defense recording? Anyone hear of the "Streisand Effect"?
Quite frankly, the fact that McCormack felt the need to issue the letter to Oscar (although I wrote the post) shows that he is worried some people may record phone calls to protect themselves. If his office is conducting themselves appropriately, what is the worry here?
So, in many ways the fact that I wrote my post gives the copyright extortion industry fair notice that the possibility exists to record a copyright extortion phone call.
Remember people, I am pretty good at getting most bullies (not all) off of me. I do whatever it takes.
Oscar did proper lawyerly thing and posted the obligatory warnings and it hasn't changed my opinion one bit.
It's interesting how this topic was buried but thanks to McCormack, it's back on top again!
Hey Timmy, how has legally threatening (clubbing baby seals is the image that comes to my mind) people worked for you on the copyright extortion front? Not so good eh? I heard you had to cry to mommy Getty about your State Bar complaints. How does your file with the Attorney General look? I haven't checked lately. Don't worry, I am confident you will not be disbarred by any of this. It is only a "frivolous complaint" against your record. Nothing your stellar "copyright cow" reputation can't handle.
You can keep on going with your "Collections Business". How does it feel running a collection agency? Fun business.
BTW, why are your new settlement letters suddenly so short nowadays? I guess it is because your toner cartridge expenses were getting too high and you were concerned about killing too many trees.
Hey, if one of your bitchy paralegals steps out of line and I get a recording of that, you want to prosecute the person recording it? Ever heard of the "Streisand Effect"? You may want to read up on the "Funnyjunk Lawyer Charles Carreon". Which lawyer wants to be next Charles Carreon? Which lawyer is going to be used for target practice by the Internet community?
Don't you just hate it when all these annoying people keep emailing me their "confidential" information and paperwork? So many people want revenge and payback. Do you know even know how many people despise you and your staff? But hey, keep up the good work. I hear you have some fat cows to feed (I meant the "copyright cow").
Thanks for putting the phone recording topic back on top again! It had already been dismissed and buried. But with Oscar and your attention on it? It's a hot topic again for debate.
I probably need to get April Brown to talk about YOU on her next Seattle radio interview!
-
This is my guilty conscience talking here since I started the whole ruckus about recording phone calls. Obviously, Glen Carner got a bit ruffled up about the idea and now Timmy McCormack.
You might be referring to me but I am not sure. My guilty conscience thinks you are referring to me and you are trying to keep me out of trouble. ;)
I have no particular reason to record anyone at this time BECAUSE I AM NOT A VICTIM and no one appears to be gunning for me directly. I have not even dug into Timmy on a personal level like I did with Linda M. Ellis of the Dash Poem extortion fame.
But if Timmy (or anyone else) ever decided to come after me for frivolous reasons, I am going to call and follow in the footsteps of Matthew Inman of TheOatmeal.com and see if I could make Timmy the next Charles Carreon. (Go Google this, it is big news and Inman is from Seattle!)
My very first dollars I spend on defense will be to Matthew Inman or some cartoonist, NOT a defense lawyer. I would then spend money and issue a ton of press releases to invite the media to cover the story. The defense lawyer thing comes later but I would probably defend myself. If I haven't alienated or run Oscar off by that point, I might even ask him for a favor for some tips and guidance.
Because I am such a fame-whore and media-whore, it might be worth going to jail a couple of days. It might look good on my bio and resume. (BTW, Linda Ellis accuses me of wanting fame and notoriety and that is why I talk about her and her poem extortion. It couldn't possibly be because I think that $2500 or $7500 extortions for sharing a poem feels outrageous to me.)
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?
-
One Ringy Dingy.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9e3dTOJi0o
;D ;D
-
PEEVED!!! where in the world, how in the world did you come up with this! I'm laughing my ass off!
-
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.
-
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.
-
And the "cringe factor" continues..... ;D ;D
Who could forget Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In". Oscar remembers!
Funny stuff!
;D
-
OMG! That was to funny, thanks for posting that Peeved! You made my day. :) :)
-
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
-
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, 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
-
MORE COWBELL!!
-
MORE COWBELL!!
http://youtu.be/UfD9fWt8hrQ
-
;D ;D ;D
-
Here's More Cowbell...
Kinda long but ya gotta see the end...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qqE_WmagjY
;D ;D
-
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
-
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.
-
My open reply to Timothy McCormack's letter has been published.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/timothy-b-mccormack-letter-to-eli-%28matthew-chan-oscar-michelen%29/msg8663/#msg8663
-
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
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
(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.
-
Good info Lucia Thanks
-
I guess this guy is going to get indicted now by a grand jury or prosecuted by a D.A. for recording a rude phone conversation by Comcast and going public with it.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/comcast-embarrassed-employees-treatment-customer-718641
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/15/media/comcast-customer-service/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I can see the D.A.'s office, FBI, local police, the sheriff's office, and a grand jury convene on this very important matter. The nerve of this guy recording a phone call without authorization. He is clearly a first-class criminal. I am sure Timmy Mack will be reaching out to the Hollywood Reporter, CNN, and help authorities indict this guy for committing a crime against Comcast (a company so many people love and exemplifies the epitomy of customer service throughout the U.S.)
I think the Hollywood Reporter and CNN is inciting illegal behavior by publicizing this story. We should also indict the management of Hollywood Reporter for their reporter's egregious behavior. Or maybe go after SoundCloud for hosting the "illegal" phone recording.
After all reporting and discussing "taboo" topics such as recording phone conversations is the same as inciting illegal behavior, right? What about all the phone recording apps on Google Play? No. I think not.