Messages

886

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaii Attorney "not-so-great" Dane Kristofer Anderson

« on: August 04, 2014, 05:33:52 PM »

ELI brings you another quick rundown on another "seasoned" and "experienced" extortion lawyer. 

The Hawaii Bar website link about Dane:

http://hsba.org/HSBA/Directory/Directory_results.aspx?ID=36403430-4d82-4198-94b1-a79ae2e3466d

He pass the July 2010 state bar exam:
http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/sct/2010/oct/July2010barada.pdf

From what I can tell, he uses a PO Box as his business address.  This is evidenced by the recent lawsuit filing.  He likely has an office similar to me called "Mi Casa".  However, he is supposed to be this "professional lawyer".

His "professionalism" is so wonderful, he has a non-existent or non-functional website.  AndersonLawHawaii.com points to a BLANK page. Even his "tutor" James Stephen Street (J-Steph), has a linkedin page and a website for gosh sakes.

He graduated in 2010, 4 years ago when he was 27-years old!  Wow, he is so experienced now at the ripe old age of 31!  He went to school at the William S. Richardson School of Law.  His classmates will be so proud of him that he has become a leading attorney for Vincent K. Tylor (VKT) as one of the most hated photographer "copyright extortionists" on the Net.

Dane is likely the low-level grunt for J-Steph and has been his tag-a-long for the last few VKT lawsuits. I have no clue if he has artsy-fartsy tendencies like his "tutor", J-Steph.

I wonder if Dane will follow in his tutor's footsteps and piss away a half-century of his life before he realizes his calling.  Maybe this is all he will do in life. Squeeze innocent infringers for money because they don't know how to make money any other way.

Young pup Dane would do well not to go up against any clients similar to Aloha Plastic Surgery from 2012.  Dr. Pasquale wasn't going to take crap from the likes of Vincent Tylor, Hawaiian Art Network, and J-Steph/Jimbo.  It is ironic how when Aloha Plastic Surgery fought back, everything was magically settled in short order.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/hawaiian-art-network-v-aloha-plastic-surgery/

887

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2

« on: August 04, 2014, 03:18:14 PM »

Vincent K. Tylor is back at it again like a dog with a bone.  After the "sudden" dismissal of his prior lawsuit against Vermont Woods by VKT's seemingly non-incorporated, non-registered law firm Woolf, Gafni, & Fowler (WGF), (http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/info-on-woolf-gafni-and-fowler-llp/) VKT has filed suit against them again this time from Hawaii by a familiar name, J. Stephen Street, aka James Stephen Street. jstephenstreet.com. A new name Attorney Dane Kristofer Anderson of andersonlawhawaii.com (no web page comes up for the not-so-great Dane.) is also listed on the complaint.

As a side comment, I am always perplexed by "professionals" who use their first initial but highlight and use their middle names.  It seems these folks hate their first names and chose to half-ass abandon them by using a first-initial instead. Or more likely, as I have seen, it is a ploy "positioning statement" to be "different" and sound "sexier".  I suppose Stephen is a bit better than James (Jim, Jimmy, Jimbo, Jimmybob etc.)

In VKT's first lawsuit against Vermont Woods, VKT desperately tried to connect Vermont Woods to California so that the California court would have jurisdiction.  WGF pathetically tried to assert that because the images were posted on Facebook & Typepad and that Facebook & Typepad were California corporations, thus California had jurisdiction.

Now, VKT has hire J-Steph/Jimbo and the Great Dane to be his "collection agents" in this case.  This time around, the argument is that because Vermont Woods delivered furniture to Hawaii, suddenly Vermont Woods Studios has magically become "Hawaii Woods Studios".  I am so sure that there are many VERMONT Woods Studios customers are suddenly in Hawaii... NOT.

In fact, VERMONT Woods has "so many" customers in Hawaii, they needed to WRITE a "news piece" about it.  Anyone with any sort of business sense KNOWS that when a business goes out of their way to WRITE "news" about DELIVERING something outside their home base, it is an EXCEPTION and ANOMALY, not the norm. I do not know how much business Vermont Woods does outside of Vermont but my guess is that there cannot be that many customers that fall under "Alaska, Hawaii, or international" especially if they are in Vermont. My estimate is that most of the business Vermont Woods generates comes from the northeast U.S.

As far as I am concerned, just because a website SAYS they deliver a product nationwide or internationally does not mean they actually do any SIGNIFICANT business nationwide.

In any case, why are there TWO lawyers signed up to represent VKT?

This is what I see.

James Stephen Street (J-Steph or Jimbo, take your pick.) is an aging 65-year old lawyer presumably collecting Social Security. He left a big law firm he worked at for nearly 30 years. Presumably, he got tired of the daily grind at the big law firm as indicated by his statement on his artsy-fartsy, painting website.

It was with very mixed emotions that I came to the realization in 2007 that I have been painting in oils for 50 years, in the "spare time" I could borrow away, first from school, then from practicing law, raising a family, coaching.... that competed for my time.  Certainly it is a milestone, but there is so much more painting I want to do before I am through.

My art has always been at the core of who I am and what I have longed to be doing.  My desire to create in oils on canvas was born out of the only formal art training I had (at age and has only intensified and become more urgent as the years pass....

Basically, J-Step/Jimbo is saying he pissed away half a century of his life doing everything else but what he really wanted. (Is that supposed to be inspirational and help sell his artsy-fartsy Hawaii paintings?) And he works for nearly 30 years at Rush Moore LLP where he finally decides he wants to do his own thing in 2010 and starts his own law practice at the "youthful" age of 61.  This guy sounds like a real risk-taker to me.  (Gee, let me wait 30 years until the "right time" before I go start my own business. Since I was too much of a coward when I was younger, I will wait to start my own business/law practice/hobby just a few years before I get to collect Social Security.)

And when he does finally gets the cajones at age 61 to finally go out on his own, what does J-Step/Jimbo do?  He finds his way to Glen Carner of Hawaiian Art Network to start collecting 35%-40% commissions from extortion letter victims clients like VKT brings to him.

Now at the youthful age of 65, J-Steph/Jimbo has to be collecting Social Security by now. He is going to need it badly if the quality of his paintings are any indication of his "artistic success".

On the far end of the age spectrum, we have a young pup lawyer, Dane Kristofer Anderson whose Hawaii Bar records shows he uses a PO Box as his address. I guess that means his office is located in the section of Hawaii called "Mi Casa Es Su Casa".  Coincidentally, I have the same address in GA except I am not a big-shot lawyer catering to clients.  The Not-So-Great Dane graduated 4-years ago in 2010 at age 27, he is now the "seasoned" lawyer at 31.

It is pretty obvious that J-Steph/Jimbo is Dane's "big daddy" and likely "tutoring" Dane.  BTW, how can a 31-year old lawyer have so little Internet presence?  Even Mr. J-Steph Social Security has a website and a Linkedin page for gosh sakes.

So we have this Hawaii tag-team of J-Steph/Great Dane (the senior citizen and the legal puppy) working together to extort sue businesses worldwide.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops in the days to come.

888

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 08:59:56 PM »

Most people don't hot-link to steal anyone's bandwidth. It is often done to preserve the originality and source of the material being cited.

And even if it were "illegal", who is going to prosecute over 1 MB (or whatever) per month being "stolen" especially when today it almost has no measurable value? What district attorney in any county the U.S. wants to waste tax dollars prosecuting some website owner for allegedly "stealing bandwidth" especially when "hotlinking" is generally regarded as a legitimate practice.

This is an example of what I refer to as changing the context of the situation.

I showed them that the images were actually "hot-linked" and cited them the Perfect 10 v. Amazon case.

Doesn't "hot-linking" qualify as bandwidth theft? Isn't this technically illegal?

889

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 08:53:34 PM »

I believe you are correct when Oscar made this statement. He doesn't qualify as being uninformed. Nevertheless, his words was used relative to the number of lawsuits that was filed previously against single-image lawsuits is probably ONE (1) at most in the previous year or two.  So, yes, going from ONE lawsuit a year to FIVE does appear to be a "wave" in that narrow context.  For the average victim to "panic" going from ONE to FIVE boilerplate lawsuits means they are missing the bigger perspective.

However, I have discussed this very topic with Oscar and made my case to him. Although we got sidetracked from the discussion, Oscar did not refute my numbers as far as the proportionality of the assertion I am making. Please also keep in mind when I post this, it is not necessarily directed at "you" but an opportunity to share my thoughts with the larger readership ELI cultivates.  Individual readers should extract those portions that are useful to them.

The fact that no one fought back doesn't mean much to me. It only means that for those parties, it was not worth the fight, unable to fight, or unwilling to fight. I can understand that. Not all fights are "worth it".  For established businesses, sometimes, it is easier to pay someone off than to fight. However, don't take that to mean if any case went "all the way", it doesn't mean Getty would get a 5-figure ruling. They were "successful" in that Getty got some people to cave in and pay and sent a message publicly.  I promise you that an extra amount of time was spent on those five cases that is not spent on most of the other hundreds or thousands of cases.

As far as I am concerned, I have access to Justia and Pacer. I don't have to take anyone else's word for the actual numbers of lawsuits because they are a public matter. I do the research myself and make my own determination.  And I share my findings when I can. People can read and believe whatever they want. 

The term "small business" is too broad.  Without giving away my own personal strategies, let's just say that not all "small businesses" are equally vulnerable to lawsuits and legal challenges. The people they targeted were not that small as with most single or dual-member businesses.  In many ways, being a single-member business is far superior in lawsuit protection than an "established" small business but most people view themselves as without defense.  That is not true.

The assertion that Getty is batting 100 from 5 boilerplate lawsuits is viewing this from a small lens and tiny context. If that is your context, then I can't disagree with you. But it is a view that cripples and disempowers. My job is to look at the larger picture and translate it to how it might affect any given case.

Also, some may not be aware of non-Getty cases where people did fight back after being served and they were persuaded to drop the lawsuit. Those don't get a lot of publicity.  There are easily hundreds of people who have not had to pay over the years but those folks will not brag about it publicly.

I have outlined many legal, non-judicial strategies over the years for those who are determined to fight back. They do not fit to everyone's personal or professional disposition or convention.  If one is determined to use the conventional "hire a lawyer and sit back and watch" strategy, then as far as I am concerned, Oscar is among the best there is.  Nevertheless, no lawyer can promise guaranteed results even Oscar.  Additionally, Oscar is constrained by what a client wants. No matter how much Oscar may want to fight back, his primary interest must be to accommodate the client's wants and needs.  And if the client's needs is to shun conflict, publicity, negativity, avoid risk, save time/energy, etc. then it is obvious.  Settlement is the best, most effective solution.

I am personally facing a legal fight of my own (Chan vs. Ellis appeal in the GA Supreme Court) where Oscar is my lawyer.  Without revealing my secrets at this time (because the case is still progressing), I can promise you as a client myself going into what is perceived as a very uphill battle, I have been very proactive and active behind the scenes and becoming involved in a way that most clients would never do. Even if I "lose", there is a high likelihood I will still "win" in a big way. It is all about context.  I apologize for being cryptic, I wish I could tell more specifics but I cannot at this time because my enemies actively read these forums.

One analogy I will give is that I was very upset and angered with Getty for issuing an extortion letter to me 6 years ago. But now I can honestly say it was one of the best things that ever happened to me.  It lead to the creation of ELI, meeting Oscar, many new friendships, and allies in life.  Not to mention many write-ups in the press.  Last year, I embarrassingly lost my case in defending against a sweeping protective order that essentially shut down an entire forum and the removal of over 2,000 posts on ELI to the point I left ELI disenchanted and disgusted for nearly a year.  And yet, what is currently happening (and yet to happen) in my case might well be one of the best personal and business life experiences I will ever go through. We will be reporting more on this as events develop.

A strategy all clients need to embrace in all lawsuits is to become active and NOT be overly dependent on the legal system.  It is not about sitting back and letting others determine your fight.  Fighting back on the legal front is an important front but it is NOT the only front. Using publicity techniques is quite effective and have been used by a number of Getty victims.  Prior victims smartly have gone public and contacts media, a TV news story hits and then suddenly Getty loses their motivation to go after someone. We have seen this happen more than once. And Getty vs. Advernet also showed an example of how to fight back and be victorious even though they later abandoned their case.  There are many successful techniques and they have been discussed throughout the years on ELI.  But honestly, there are some techniques that will never be discussed publicly or freely because we know our "enemies" actively read our forums.  You can thank them for being so attentive that we now have to censor ourselves.

There are ways of discouraging a lawsuit BEFORE it hits.  And even if one were to hit, there are ways to deal with it also. The "new wave" of Getty's lawsuits doesn't materially change tactics one bit.  In fact, if Getty decides to suddenly file 40-100 lawsuits tomorrow, there is a huge publicity opportunity for all the victims. We at ELI hopes this never happens as this would cause a great deal of stress for many innocent infringers but nonetheless, the publicity opportunity for ELI and extortion letter victims would be priceless.

We, at ELI, believe we are in the right side of this fight but we can only do so much. Ultimately, it comes down to how a victim thinks and behaves which makes all the difference.  And even if one gets a letter and has to settle, it doesn't have to be a catastrophic event.

A wave of psychobabble by the uniformed? "I suspect that Getty will re-launch  another wave at some point this year." Stated by Oscar Michelin earlier this week in regard to the question of the status of single image lawsuits. There will be another "wave" Oscar's words not mine, because they were successful. None fought back and Getty got their money.The numbers some are concerned about are how many of those that receive letters and subsequently are sued are incorporated small businesses. I think the percentage/risk of being sued would be higher if you broke that down, that is more of the point. Also we should discuss the strategy of where they are suing. Why were most suits filed in the 11th circuit? So far it is batting 100 for small incorporated businesses being sued for single images. None of Oscar's clients fought this (innocent or not)- they all settled and presumably for more than they were initially approached for in initial letters, as at a minimum they now had to also pay his fees. So I think it reasonable to discuss the strategy of this particular new extortion of suing incorporated small businesses because Getty knows they cannot represent themselves in court and when it will be cheaper to settle with them from the get go ie the first letter that asks the least amount - right or wrong.

890

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / New Developments in ELI Appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court

« on: August 02, 2014, 04:28:57 AM »

Since July 2, 2014, my (and ELI's) appeal took a significant turn when the GA Court of Appeals recognized our First Amendment / constitutional-related legal arguments and issues. So much so, that the GA Court of Appeals feels that my case is one of "first impression" in the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impression_%28law%29

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_impression

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/case+of+first+impression

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/case-of-first-impression-term.html

As such, the GA Court of Appeals felt it was the jurisdiction of the GA Supreme Court to make this kind of important ruling.

Shortly after my case was docketed with the GA Court of Appeals, Attorneys Oscar Michelen & William J. McKenney formally stepped in to start representing me. Up to that point, I was representing myself "pro se".  I had navigated my case up to the GA Court of Appeals. It became apparent that my case needed to be transferred to the GA Supreme Court and we made a motion for request of transfer but the GA Court of Appeals denied our request to do so.

However, the good news is that the recent order by the GA Court of Appeals shows that they reconsidered the matter and finally agreed with us that my case belongs in the jurisdiction of the GA Supreme Court. The subsequently issued the order to do so on July 2, 2014.

This thread will clarify and the case's progress as notated by the docket show on the GA Supreme Court website. The notations are a bit cryptic without additional information or explanation.  I, along with other senior members of the ELI Community, will provide occasional news, updates, and additional information in this thread.

891

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Re: Matthew's Appeal Is Now Docketed!

« on: August 02, 2014, 04:19:47 AM »

It appears the earlier discussions of my case going to the Georgia Supreme Court has become a reality.  The Georgia Court of Appeals saw that there was merit in our arguments. So much so, that they reversed their previous order to deny our motion of request to transfer our case to the Georgia Supreme Court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/232423410/Chan-vs-Ellis-GA-Court-of-Appeals-Ruling

The wheels of justice are turning slowly but they are turning.

The new docket is now under the Georgia Supreme Court effective July 15, 2014. You can follow the case here:

http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?caseNumber=S14A1652

892

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Read July 30, 2014: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest - ELI Appeal Case

« on: August 02, 2014, 04:05:02 AM »

Read the July 30, 2014 article by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest on ELI & Matthew Chan's Appeal Case being transferred to the Georgia Supreme Court.

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/georgia-supreme-court-takes-chan-v-ellis-appeal-to-redefine-first-amendment-right-on-the-internet-2

893

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

« on: August 02, 2014, 02:43:13 AM »

People who receive the letters think they are "special" and will be "targeted" specifically. The reality is that most victims are rather insignificant in the big scheme of things.  The reality is that several thousands of letters go out each year.  A "wave of single image lawsuits" is entirely subjective psychobabble from people who are uninformed.

A "wave" of 10 lawsuits filed out of 3,000 letters a year (a conservative number) means there is a 0.3% chance of a lawsuit.  20 lawsuits would be 0.6% chance.  30 lawsuits would have to be filed to achieve even a 1% chance of a lawsuit.

The very fact that some have bought into the propaganda means that they are ripe to be picked.  There are people who are naturally-inclined to be suckered and be a victim, hence, they settle quietly because they lack objectivity and the ability to be rational and see the big picture.

ELI has covered several topics ad nauseum.  People's ignorance of legal understanding is the very reason why extortionists are upset that ELI discusses non-legal (vs. illegal) strategies in dealing with it.  The Getty staff lawyers themselves hide out because they hate being exposed. They are too busy enjoying their $100K+ salaries.  They use outside lawyers like "Beam My Ass Up" Scotty Wilsdon and Timmy (B. utthurt) McCormack as "henchmen" (notice the quote marks o great screenshot experts) to do their dirty work.

As has previously predicted and discussed, the 5 lawsuits were filed in a way to minimize expenses.  Each of the lawsuits were practically clones of each other.  But does the general layperson know that?  Nope.  Their reptilian brain says, they will be sued for $100,000 and that they will easily help themselves to every asset and account a person has.  For the record, that is NOT how that works.  ELI can only help certain types of people.  For others, it doesn't matter what you say, they want to argue with us (the people who have watched extortionists operate for the last 5 years).

Many think there there is only one way to fight back (through the court system).  Those people who think like that are the ones that become victims.

Even if Getty filed 50-100 lawsuits, there will be a field day in the media.  No easy way they can pull this off and not get a huge amount of PR blowback.  A casual view of dockets.justia.com corroborates what that the last "wave" of lawsuits consisted of only 5 boilerplate lawsuits. It wasn't a "wave". It was a "raindrop" at best, nothing close to a "wave".

ELI provides a lot of information, resources, and techniques to counter the Getty threat.  But the truth is, all of what we provide is useless is if a person doesn't "get it".  For some, giving up settlement money is a small price to pay.  For others, like me and other prominent members of the ELI Community, we don't like being pushed around and being extorted.  And guess what, we aren't pushed around.  However, ELI is greatly hated by many in the copyright extortion industry.

Another wave of single image lawsuits is coming? Against small incorporated companies no doubt that can't afford to hire counsel AND pay Getty. (And incorporated companies cannot represent themselves which of course Getty knows and is taking advantage of). So far every company sued has settled apparently, regardless of the facts - even when the law was on their side (like the hotlink case Oscar just discussed). So basically it seems to make sense to pay on a single image alleged infringement at the first and lowest amount offered in the first Getty Letter (which by most accounts is under $900) if the potential defendant is a LLC or a corporation - because as discussed here it would cost more to fight it than to pay it.  I surmise it would cost even more than what the letter asked for to retain any counsel at all (even Oscar) to even settle for that original amount they asked for. If I am wrong please let me know and why.

894

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Read the July 21, 2014 Ars Technica Article: ELI Case going to GA Supreme Court

« on: July 21, 2014, 06:15:46 PM »

Read the July 21, 2014 follow-up article by Ars Technica reporting on the ELI PPO case now going to the GA Supreme Court.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/ga-supreme-court-to-reconsider-sweeping-gag-order-against-anti-troll-site/

895

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Read the July 17, 2014 FightCopyrightTrolls Update Blog Post

« on: July 20, 2014, 06:20:15 AM »

Our friends and supporters at FightCopyrightTrolls (FCT) has wrote and published a new blog post about the Court of Appeals order to transfer my appeal to the GA Supreme Court.

http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/2014/07/17/court-of-appeals-orders-georgia-censorship-case-transferred-to-georgia-supreme-court/

Many of the senior ELI members are fans of FCT as they aggressively follow, report, and battle the porn trolls.

896

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Matthew Chan's PPO Appeal Court Documents

« on: July 20, 2014, 05:58:27 AM »

On July 2, 2014, the GA Court of Appeals ordered my appeal to be transferred to the GA Supreme Court. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/234166672/Press-Release-7-15-2014-Chan-v-Ellis-Appeal-Transferred-to-GA-Supreme-Court

On July 15, 2014, The GA Supreme Court docketed my case.

http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?caseNumber=S14A1652


To read my legal briefs (prepared by Oscar Michelen) and opposing party briefs (by Elizabeth McBride & Timothy B. McCormack), these are two pages that contain links to the most important court documents of my case.

http://copyright-trolls.com/site/matthew-chan-v-linda-ellis-appeal-essential-court-documents/

http://gettyimagesmustchange.com/site/matthew-chan-v-linda-ellis-appeal-court-documents/

897

ELI Responses: Media Coverage of Chan v. Ellis Case / Read March 27, 2013 Alex Jones' Infowars / Prison Planet Article about ELI & PPO

« on: July 20, 2014, 05:35:28 AM »

I was not aware of this article written last year by Alex Jones' Prison Planet / Infowars about me, ELI, and the PPO.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/court-ruling-threatens-internet-first-amendment-freedom.html

http://www.infowars.com/court-ruling-threatens-internet-first-amendment-freedom/

What is important about this article is that it provides a link to the case, United States vs. Carmichael (2004) where the government sought a protective order to shut down Carmichael's website because it was allegedly threatening witnesses and government agents.

However, the Court found that the protective order sought by the government was not warranted because it was not enough of a threat to put a restraint on Carmichael's speech or his constitutional right to investigate his case.

This case appears to have some relevance to my appeal now with the GA Supreme Court.

898

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article

« on: July 18, 2014, 10:28:00 PM »

Under Section 230 of the CDA, I do not accept responsibilities for any part of this comment as I did not make it. The doctrine of "respondeat superior" also does not apply because there I have no employer/employee relationship or a master/slave relationship with Peevey.

But wait.... I see a "quote fragment" that can be used for a potential defamation charge "Timothy B. McCormack... is....ELI's...Photographer".  That statement is absolutely false and will cause irreparable damage to his professional reputation.  ;-)

Oh no! Google's index will be triggered because our sophisticated SEO forum software might associate his name with "respondeat superior", "master/slave", "defamation", "asshat", and "butthurt". 

Maybe he will write another wondrous "amicus brief" about an alleged "worldwide hate campaign" using "obscene", "misogynistic" language. 

Since it's been "derailed"...

I'm going to jump in as well and agree that Timothy B. McCormack is indeed ELI's "favorite ELI screenshot photographer".

Is it my constitutional right under the First Amendment to
LAUGH OUT LOUD? I think so.

899

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article

« on: July 18, 2014, 03:04:04 PM »

Ryan Block didn't ask for permission. He was frustrated and figured the only way to solve this problem was to get proof he was in this ridiculous position. No one in customer service is going to give permission. They have little to gain from it but it is obnoxious that they have a right to record you under the auspices of "training purposes".  Sometimes, there is no other way to solve the problem but to make the phone call and you are forced to being recorded. In that regard, turnaround is certainly fair play as far as I am concerned.

Of course, Timmy Mack (Timothy B. McCormack, our well-studied outside Getty lawyer, favorite ELI screenshot photographer, and ELI distortion field historian) is going to get a screenshot of this new thread with Lucia's more conservative view claiming that I am once again using my "cult leader" status "inciting" ELI readers into "illegal behavior" once again despite the fact that journalists and bloggers around the world are simply on fire over the Comcast debacle. Let us also remember that Ryan Block is a tech journalist who probably has more experience than me in blogging and he CHOSE his course of action to freely disseminate for the greater good.

900

Getty Images Letter Forum / Shamecasting recommended in CNN Opinion Article

« on: July 18, 2014, 11:05:19 AM »

With the recent infamous Comcast debacle, bloggers and journalists have come out in droves expressing their approval of Ryan Block's strategy of fighting back Comcast (clearly a much larger entity) through "shamecasting". More specifically, Ryan Block unilaterally decided without asking anyone's permission to start recording this offensive phone call with Comcast for the purpose of openly sharing and shaming Comcast. And it absolutely worked.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/opinion/wheeler-comcast-call/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Some people might say what Ryan Block did was technically illegal. After all, he did record the phone call without Comcast's position.  But if Comcast attempts to even prosecute or file suit against Ryan Block, there is no question the Streisand effect would kick in and folks on the Internet would move in on Comcast.  There will be little sympathy or support for Comcast as Ryan Block is clearly the victim who had to tolerate obnoxious behavior.

Comcast is infamous for bad customer service and their ongoing price-gouging ways. It would not take much for people to literally stage a revolt against Comcast. The onslaught by the Ryan Block's "shamecast" has triggered a hatred for cable companies and Comcast in particular.

Likewise, Getty Images and their ilk are absolutely hated by the thousands around the world.  And with each letter they send out, they increase the strength and army that would like to see them put out of business altogether.

It is bad enough to receive extortion letters but one does not have to tolerate obnoxious threatening phone calls. Of course, the easiest thing to do is to simply NOT accept phone calls or speak to anyone you do not know.