Comments on: EFF and 10 Zen Monkeys vs. Michael Crook and DMCA

By: watchdos

watchdos — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:47:08 +0000

Ok, not like anyone actually posts to his site, but just a notice if you choose to. From his “terms of service:

“Therefore, those who post “spam”, or any commercial or non-profit advertisment, including but not limited to posts, blog entries, signatures, avatars, and any other form of text to the blog and/or message board may be charged a service/handling fee of $2,000 USD per post. This fee applies regardless of whether or not the post appears, i.e. the fee may still be assessed even if the post is held in a moderation queue”

not that he could legally enforce that, as any real lawyer would confirm- but you all know what a gnat he can be…

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:26:54 +0000

I just read his blog post about debating Hannity. He’s going to claim that he wins, of course, if H doesn’t respond. Does he really think that he’s worth H’s time? People are bored of his tired antics, and H has to go where the news is. He’d more likely debate the originator of certain views, rather than an copycat. But, I guess that Crook is falling out of public view again- he needs another humilation just to stay in the spotlight. Sigh, like Emily said- just the griefer star wars kid. Or, perhaps, the guy that copied the star wars kid, lol

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:50:34 +0000

What I like is that this silly goat is claiming fair use protection on his personal site… hmm, isn’t that a tiny bit hypocritical?

By: A fan of Crook's

A fan of Crook's — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:57:32 +0000

Michael Crook has posted a video response on YouTube to the FNC appearance. Go to YouTube and key in “michael crook” and you’ll see his image. Click on that video and hear his response as opposed to being hateful.

By: #1 crook fan Says:

#1 crook fan Says: — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:41:05 +0000

notice how he once again fakes taking his site down? hmm- notice that every link gives him referrer credit?
I dunno- maybe even he’s getting bored with his own tired act. He fizzled out, is all, it happens. But just watch- we saw this before when he wanted to play cop. He pulls back , but then gets bored or lonely, so he tries to do another big thing again- for attention. Just watch, give it a while, he’ll keep trying to get attention. And, yes, people may buy into it again.
It’s just sad- he thought that with his -ahem- “fame”, that people would, what, by his book? Join his fake religion (tax shelter?). Can’t we take up a collection for this guy? He’s always tring to get some money.

By: Emily

Emily — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:05:01 +0000

Diehl and EFF’s actions have broken Crook. All he can do now is carry on a dialog between himself and his anonymous personas.

His formulaic hate pieces are repetitious and boring, affecting few. He will never achieve netwide notoriety again. His name will be synonymous with failure. He will be the griefer Star Wars Kid.

Heh.

By: Emily

Emily — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:49:54 +0000

I still laugh every time I see the screen capture of Crook. His lips look exactly Francis the Talking Mule. Of course, Francis was in the Navy. Crook didn’t get past the sign that says you have to be “This Tall”.

It looks like he’s spending the day doing damage control at his blog. Deleting uncomplimentary posts and editing some to make himself look less like an idiot. That has to be a full time job.

Happy Valentine’s Day Mike. Say “hi” to Porky.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:39:19 +0000

Has he lost this lawsuit? I just got a “Withdrawl of DMCA” email from him… or has he just given up?

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:05:12 +0000

It’s one thing or another, I’m really bored with him. He’s like Maralyn Manson- entertaining to watch for a while, but has to keep taking another step forward to get attention. This will probably fade away sooner or later, and he’ll move on to something else. I used to like to see him make an arse of himself, but it’s just no fun anymore. I’m actually reading fortuny now- at least he’s original. Even read his blog- someone already beat him to the church throne/sofa/whatever thing. sigh, someone wake me up when he thinks of something on his own!

By: Emily

Emily — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:30:10 +0000

Unbefuckinglievable!

Michael Crook has transcended jerkoffery.

Now he would like us to believe that he is a reverend and that we should entrust him with our deepest darkest secrets because he want to “help” people.

An anonymous poster on his blog

http://www.michaelcrook.org/theblog/2007/02/10/a-new-church/

asked:

“In the Craigslist Perverts project, was there not information given to you by your contacts that was of a confidential nature? Certainly, any photographs they gave you were given in confidence. As a man of the cloth, will you be the judge of what constitutes a breach of confidentiality or will you honor the wishes of those you serve?”

The oh so reverend Crook weaseled, “Well, certainly the Craigslist Perverts project was a gray area” but now he’s “duty-bound” not to pull those kinds of shenanigans again.

A gray area indeed. This man’s capacity for self delusion is without boundary.

By: Emily

Emily — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:08:35 +0000

Just cruised over to the Crook’s website and read that he is now the Right Reverend Crook. I’ll have to admit it was the next link on the evolutionary chain. The United Church of the Couch or some such nonsense. May as well be the Holy Order of the Sacred Bowl Scrubbers.

My prediction? The IRS will have him bent over the couch arm within a year. The way he plays fast and loose with “good faith” interpretation of law will land his ass in a federal prison this time.

G*d Bless little Michael.

By: Emily

Emily — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:04:16 +0000

Sam, it looks like Derwood misread your comment because he’s arguing about something completely different. Your point about the copyright ownership of the pictures sent to the Crook is valid. I would add, however, that since it’s unlikely that the subjects took their own pictures, the copyright to them belongs to whoever is the photographer. At any rate, the Crook doesn’t own them. Whether or not fair use would allow him to post them on his website is something I would not be qualified to comment about.

Looks like the Crook is officially screwed re the lawsuit with Diehl though. Good for you Jeff!

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:01:10 +0000

yeah, he brags about his “awards” on his site. It’s just sad. Thing is, he can stir up some trouble now, but he’ll always be remembered as a copycat griefer. Doesn’t matter what else he does- no one will remember the failed political attempt, the racism, the failure in the military- he’ll just be a footnote in the story of Fortuny’s life.

By: Derwood

Derwood — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:18:56 +0000

Sam, you have no legal background and you are wrong…
Ever been on TV before?? Before they can show you on TV, you have to sign a release form. That little release gives them sole ownership and copyright of the images. They can’t and won’t show your image on TV without that release.
So, the images in question are owned by Fox News. Not Michael Crook.
That debate aside.. The images posted fall under the fair use portion of copyright law. Fair use says the images can be used without permission of the copyright owner, especially when used as part of a parody.

Crook Fan, yes.. He does it because negative attention is better than none. Some attention starved children do the same thing by acting out. They want attention, and they know by acting in a socially unacceptable manner they will get that attention. Even if its a spanking or getting yelled at, its still some form of attention.

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:23:04 +0000

Reading some of these posts- just remember that he says things just to get a reaction. My 6 year old does the same thing sometimes. He doesn’t have the personality or genuine intelligence to be universally liked, so he’ll try to be universally hated. It’s just kind of pathetic.

By: #1 crook fan

#1 crook fan — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:05:14 +0000

This guy’s a hoot. He talks about how this lawsuit will only give him free publicity, and something about exposing his views or something. I say that’s a great thing! This fella’s a laughingstock!
That’s why he keeps coming up with these views that I bet even he doesn’t believe, he just loves the attention. I wish that he would at least come up with something worth reading- just like his craigslist copycat thing, everything that he spouts off is someone else’s idea. Yeah, he gets attention, but most comedians do.
He’ll lose, of course, but he’ll weasel out of payment. All this lawsuit will do is show the world that he’s a total idiot. I just really can’t get how he would rather have a reputation as a copycat/griefer rather than someone worth listening to.
oh, well.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:55:03 +0000

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc

This states that a copyright notice is NOT required on works, and any photographic work is automatically given a copyright when it is first taken. This would seem to indicate that the photos sent by the subjects abused by Crook to Crook ARE subject to a legitimate copyright belonging to the subject if the photos were taken by the subject themselves. This might be a good thing to mention if this can be validated. I of course have no legal background.

Sam

By: Permanent Ascent

Permanent Ascent — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:00:21 +0000

You’ve got an ally in your corner! We hate that guy, what he says, and what he stands for. We appreciate your cause and hope that things go well in the lawsuit. We also appreciate the fact that you saw fit to mention us in that article that’s causing all of the fus - we’ve posted a link to this page and that article on our site so our community will be hopefully a little more informed. Keep fighting the good fight!

-Chuck (guitarist)

By: Tony Begonja

Tony Begonja — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:27:29 +0000

Re: http://10zenmonkeys.com/2006/11/01/eff-crook-dmca-lawsuit/

Hi, I ran into this exact same kind of problem back in 2000-2002 when a certain DMCA abuser (Joseph Colin James III) repeatedly got my entire web site (http://www.ind-movement.org) shut down (instead of just individual pages). He ultimately sued me in Federal Court and lost. For a write-up see http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/

It should be noted that Mr. James got a *lot* of different web sites shut down at that time, not just mine.

EFF didn’t directly take on my case at the time, but did point me to a really good free-speech lawyer.

Ultimately I wound up using the firm owned by EFF’s former webmaster, Marc Perkel, for my web hosting (ctyme.com). Marc doesn’t take legal flak from *anybody*.

There was even a newpaper article about Mr. James and his tactics of harassing not only critics, but just about anybody he didn’t agree with. It’s archived at http://www.ind-movement.org/articles/bw_article_cfm_aid_479.html
(The article had been also archived on the Internet Archive, but I’m afraid that page is now “blocked”. Hmmm.)

By: webmonkees

webmonkees — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:50:07 +0000

http://www.fark.com had a photoshop contest using Mr. Crook’s image..
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2390696

For the first time in about 80-90?? postings of images of questionable copyright status, I received an email from photobucket telling me my image I had hosted with them in that thread was in violation of DMCA.
Just reviewed the Fark thread; looks like Flicr has pulled a couple of other images.
Probably same story.

Well, it was, but again, with literally hundreds of images posted, none had ever gotten a DMCA. Thanks, Mike, I’m proud to be in the crowd!