22 20

21

16 11 10

14

9

17 13 15
5

12

4

23
2 1

6

7

18

8

3

19
MICHAEL Baldwinsville, JEFFERY

Plaintiff

Michael

Telephone:

Defendant

legal-cases@mcipdns.com

8417 Oswego Rd. #179

I'WffSC""
V s. CROOK, NY

1.)

Diehl

Michael

S. Crook, Pro-Se

filed with the Court by counsel for the Plaintiff.

I 1

("Plaintiff")

Crook

DIEHL,

ANSWER

13027

("Defendant")

n

FOR

(315) 350-3412

and

AND

THE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

) )
) ) ) )

)

)

)

)

acknowledges

COUNTERCLAIM-

NORTHERN

ANSWER

UNITED

hereby

Case

STATES

No:

I'~
C-06-8600-SBA AND

1
DISTRICT
COUNTERCLAIM

service

acknowledges

by

DISTRICT

a

voluntary

the

OF

Complaint

~

COURT

CALIFORNIA

#C-06-6800-SBA

Waiver

of

of

Jeffrey

Service,

L-,

I I

21 20 17 16 15 12 11 13 10

19

18
9

14 4 7
8 6 5 3

22

2 1

forth
alleges: 1.)

allegations 1.)

matter, 3.)

2.)

The

COMES
America. is inappropriate Defendant Defendant Defendant

joins

a

by resident Defendant

virtue

Plaintiff

NOW

set

to the California
denies hereby

the following
is

forth

of

ANSWER a

of

business

at Onondaga

bona

it

by

this

Michael
any

being

accepts

the

("'\

Answer
fide time entry conduct.

in a demand

Plaintiff

"legally

Constitution

AND citizen

ANSWER

County, the

seeks

S. Crook
into

jurisdiction

COUNTERCLAIM-

in

of

the

and related
frivolous". the within

for a jury

the legal

jurisdiction

and other

dismissal

trial.

related

I age

("Defendant"),

2

the

of

within

matters

JURISDICTION
the

Counterclaim
Failing State

Complaint:

of

of

Court

the

the

-, of

the

that

Plaintiff's

#C-O6-6800-SBA

of sound
New

pertaining
State

for

United

request,

in response mind
York, complaint the United

purposes

of

-n

to any

States

California

of

and legal

Defendant

of

this

America,

allegations

States

to the charges
in this

as

matter,

pertains

of

age who

and
sets

of

and

and

..-

n

1
2

1.) Defendant submits the plaintiff has no cause of action as relates to the alleged
expenses incurred in relation to a new web host, as outlined under "Factual

3

Allegations",

number

14.

By

choosing

to

intentionally

and

&

4
5

circumvent a lawful request under the provisions set forth in the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA ") by simply moving to an enabling

6 7 8
9 2.)

provider suchas Laughing Squid,the Plaintiff shouldnot be entitled to any form of damages.

By

his

own

admission,

the

Plaintiff

has

alleged

that

he

voluntarily

maliciously

10 11
12

("Factual Allegations", Provision 14) to anotherserviceprovider without being askedand/orforced to leave,the Plaintiff assumed responsibilitiesrelatedto all
choosing a new host, including but not limited to any increase in hosting fees, as

13
14

well any costs associated with the move. Defendant repeats his request for the
Court to dismiss this claim, as well as any and all of Plaintiff's claims as pertains

15 16 17 18
19

to damages, attorney'sfees,and any other form of reimbursement and/or damages, whetherfinancial or injunctive.

3.) Defendantdeniesinterference with contractsor business arrangements, the as
Plaintiff has alleged. As already mentioned, Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff's

20
21

own actions led to his alleged increased costs, and the Plaintiff's actions forced
the Defendant to police what he felt in good faith were his rights under copyright

22

law

and

the

provisions

of

the

DMCA.

Defendant

repeats

his

allegation

moved

23

becausePlaintiff voluntarily moved to a new service provider, he assumed all

3
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

co!.

.
,

l.-c"

that

~

A

~

~

"~,

!

J

,',

1
2

tinancialliabilities relating to that decision,andtherefore,Defendantseeksthe
dismissal of any and all of Plaintiff's claims and requests for damages,

3

reimbursement, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and any other relief that the Court

4 5 6
7

would otherwiseconsiderunderthe provisionsof § 17200et sq.

4.) Defendantallegesthat his actionsdid not meetthe qualificationsof unfair,
fraudulent or misleading business practices. Complaints were made to the

8

Plaintiff's

service

providers

based

upon

a

good

faith

belief

that

A

there

was

9

infringement

of

copyright

through

the

natural

course

of

his

DMCA

10
11

Because the Plaintiff refused to comply with what the Defendant had a good faith
belief to believe was a lawful DMCA order, Defendant was forced to police his

12 13 14 15
16

rights by notifying any and all enablingagentsof the infringement. Defendant deniesPlaintiff's allegationsthat the noticeswere sentwith the intent of malice, or intent to "terminate,interferewith, interrupt, or otherwiselimit" the rights of Plaintiff. The Plaintiff placedhis own rights in jeopardy by way of refusingto
comply with the DMCA. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not suffered any injuries,

17 18 19
20

especially not "substantially" or "irreparably". It should be noted that www.l Ozenmonkeys.com,upon information and belief, is still online, as are all of Plaintiff's other web properties, thereby negating this claim on the part of the
Plaintiff. Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff did not meet his obligations as a

21
22

content provider, and as such should be expected to bear the costs related to his
conduct. On that basis, Defendant repeats his request for the Court to dismiss any

4
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-06-6800-SBA

,

complaint.

an

""A

I:

I

.-

'

n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

("')

and all claims of damageand/orharm, including, but not limited to reimbursement, disgorgement, restitution. and

5.) Defendantallegesthat for the purposes the Plaintitrs claims of unfair, of unlawful, and fraudulentbusiness practices-all of saidclaims the Defendant herebydenies--the Defendantis not in violation of the California Constitution,as Defendantdoesnot resideor do business within the Stateof California. Defendantthereforeseeksto causethe Court to dismissthis claim on the part of
the Plaintiff, as well as any and all charges pertaining to unfair, unlawful, and

10 11
12 6.)

fraudulentbusiness practicessetforth by the Plaintiff.

Defendant

alleges

that

the

Plaintiff

suffered

no

loss

to

his

rights

to

freedom

13
14

speech,not withstanding the fact that he abused said rights with his malicious and
intentional purpose of harassment and annoyance upon the Defendant. Defendant

15 16
17

alleges that the Plaintiff has abusedthe provisions of17 U.S.C. 107(1-4), in that his comments were not intended to criticize the Defendant or report news, rather
they were intended to harass, annoy, and cause undue stress and inflict emotional

18

distress

upon

the

Defendant.

Therefore,

Defendant

seeks

to

cause

the

Court

of

19 20 21 22 23

dismissany and all claims upon the part of Plaintiff that pertainto allegationsof lost free speech and any other rights underthe Copyright Act of the United States of America, andthe United StatesConstitution,or any other law, whetherlocal, state,or federal.

5
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

","-

I

to

~

1

7.)

Defendant

admits

to

the

Plaintiff's

claim

that

he

submitted

n

numerous

2

notices

to

websites

and

their

hosts,

who

posted

material

that

the

Defendant

DMCA

felt,

3

good

faith,

to

be

in

violation

of

Defendant's

DMCA

rights.

This

4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 9.)

Defendant'sgood faith belief in the validity of said documents.

8.) In regardsto allegedviolation of l' V.S.C. 512(f), the Defendantallegesthereis a copyright held by the Defendant,despitethe allegationsof the Plaintiff. Specifically,the Defendantrefersthe Court and Plaintiff to I' V.S.C. 201(a).

Defendant

alleges

that

as

he

was

the

person

who

provided

a

substantial

solidifies

12

of

the

material

in

question

("the

interview")

on

Fox

News

Channel

("FNC")

portion

13
14

May 2005, the Defendant at that time became a "co-author" of the "original
work" in question. For the purposes of copyright law, Defendant alleges that he

15

derived

his

right

through

FNC's

publication

of

his

"work",

when

FNC

caused

in

16

interview to be provided to satellite and cable systems, as well as other modes of

17

delivery

on

the

part

18
19

10.)
News Channel

Defendant therefore alleges that the co-authorship is shared with Fox

ofFNC.

V.S.C. 201(a)

in

regards

to

his

specific

interview,

by

way

of

20
21

and in that regard,he shouldenjoy all the rights and privilegesthereof,including,
but not limited to, protecting his rights under the DMCA, and he should not

22

expectfrivolous court action in return.

6
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-06-6800-SBA I

I

III

,

l'

the

in

20 17 16 15

19

4

7
8

18
6 5 1 3 2

9

22 10

21

13 11
12
11.)

14
12.) this considered transfer justification existence,

28,

Infringement",

preceding his

I

rights

I

1998, "original

I

At

Because

and/or

ANSWER

under

are

paragraphs,

either

no

an

on

proper

work

time

"original

assign

~

as

the

the

at

by

-

the

did

all

of

part

DMCA,

oral

and

AND

DMCA times, authorship"

them

the

the

work

of

or

just.

Defendant

Defendant

FNC

written

COUNTERCLAIM-

to

and

the

of

regulations

FNC.

Furthermore,

to

Defendant's

authorship".

due

was

grant means.

, to

Furthermore,

cause

7
seeks the as to Defendant's Defendant they interest cause were the was signed seeks Court allegations in good the into to dismiss Court's faith law set on forth defense with dismissal October

entered

blanket

Therefore,

a

release

By

into

permission

Defendant's

#C-O6-6800-SBA

the

with

and/or

there

interview

Fox

\
r-\

channel ("publication").Defendant alleges under17V.S.C. that
for

enjoys legalright to protect image the this under provisions theDMCA. the of

to their satellite,and then causingthe sameto be transmittedover their cable

Defendant's image, becausethe Defendant never gave up his rights, nor did he

image and words, a "co-authorship" relationship for the purposes of publishing

way of sameproviding the meansfor uplinking the Defendant'simageand words

prejudice the requests of the Plaintiff for "Declaratory Relief of Non-

underthe protectionsof an "original work of authorship",defendantretainsand

of any and all of the Plaintiff's requests injunctive relief. for
News providing the should misuse Channel, be of of his

was

waiver

)

never

to

come

any

into

201(a), and

in

by

of

("'"l
""" ,..

~

f

/,..,c

,

.-"

1 2 3
4

13.) The Defendantallegesthat the Plaintiff shouldexpectno protectionaspertainsto the photographin controversyunderthe Fair Use provision, 17 V.S.C. 107(1-4). The Plaintiff cannotreasonably claim that his purposein the entry which sparkedthe matterin
controversy ("In The Company of JerkojJs", published September 18, 2006) was "news

5

reporting"

or

"criticism"

because

his

comments

went

beyond

that

scope,

,

by

way

6

referring

to

Defendant

as

a

'1erk-off"

(Shown

in

"Proofs",

Item

A),

which

can

7
8

construed as "fighting words" and harassment. Defendant alleges that by virtue of these
words, this entry was designed to generally express and incite hatred against Defendant.

9

Defendant

therefore

alleges

that

Plaintiff

can

enjoy

no

Fair

Use

protection

in

this

be

of

10

11

14.)

The

Defendant

will

prove

to

the

Court's

satisfaction

that

one's

image,

by

way

regard.

of

12
13

and law, is able to be protected under trademark, and as such the notion of "police it or
lose it" must be enacted. There was no malice or intent of bad faith upon the part of the

14 15 16
17

Defendant. The Plaintiff hasnot presented proofs that satisfiesthe allegationof intentionalmisrepresentation, whethermaterial or otherwise. The defendanthereby deniesany suchchargeand seeks dismissalof any and all suchcharges. the
15.) The DMCA complaint in controversy read, in part, that the Defendant was

18
19

authorized to act upon the holder of "an exclusive right". The "exclusive right" in this
case was the right to Defendant's image, which was granted to FNC, and no other party.

20

At

no

time

was

a

release

form,

whether

oral

or

written,

agreed

upon,

and

therefore

21

Plaintiff

has

a

good

faith

belief,

and

Plaintiff

alleges

that

FNC

is

not

authorized

22

consentto the releaseof Defendant'simage. Defendantallegesthat he did not perjure

8
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

J

I

I

,i

to

the

fact

23 14 12 13

22

16

9
8 5 4

17
6

7

21 2
10

20

3

18 15

19

1

11

section 16.)

entry

Court,

the protecting "webmasters" for Defendant

Hannity

17

I

Plaintiff's

any

protest.
The

entitled

and

himself,

"Proofs"-Item use

and

because

Defendant

I

the

201(a),

V.S.C.
alleges

the

t other

Colmes,

I

"EFF

requests use

Plaintiff

if

ANSWER

the

he

than

of that specifically

and

consented

has

Court

his

and

broadcast

for

FNC

~

,

should

B)

every

1

image,

0

other

!,

Declaratory

granted

:

This

Zen

AND is

because not

to

expectation

simply

Monkeys

and

FNC

on

was

his

COUNTERCLAIM-

authorized

an

FNC

the provisions of 17 V.S.C. 201(a).

seeks

image

posted

properties.

adhere injunction

Relief

FNC

I

itself.

vs.

to

and

being

,

9
dismiss to from the forbidding the law, said Court. and claim, defendant find Defendant as alternate well from as respectfully means any actively and of all of

on

Michael

never

to

right

November

act

No

used

gained

in

to

other

Crook

any

defend

for

#C-06-6800-SBA

the

other

use

the

1,

and

2006,

consent

said

Fox

was

manner,

~

DMCA".

News

work,

CO,,"

authorized,

at

:

a

of

time

the

especially

in

Channel's

(Shown

harmony

Defendant

that

and

17.) Defendant submits that it would set a dangerous precedent to the detriment of

copyright holders,and in unduefavor of contentproviderssuchas "bloggers" and

the

in

under

the complaint for this matter on his blog, located at www.l0zenmonkeys.com, under an submits that the arguments expressed in that regard by the Plaintiff have no place in this
with

18.) Defendant seeksto cause the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint based on the

grounds that plaintiff has maliciously and purposefully harassedthe defendant by posting

the

n
1 2 3 4 5
6 19.) On November 6, 2006, the same day that the plaintiff's lawyers

n

plaintiff knew the defendanthad not beenserved. This calls into questionthe plaintiff's true intent, and alsorendersany allegationof damages the plaintiff's part null and on void. This can also be perceivedasbeing harassment intentional infliction of and emotionaldistresson the part of the Plaintiff.

initiated

7

paperwork,

an

entry

was

posted

on

the

blog

entitled

"Crook's

Internet

Club",

more

(Shown

8

the

section

"Proofs"-Item

C)

wherein

a

photograph

from

defendant's

senior

high

9

yearbook

was

posted,

in

an

obvious

attempt

to

intimidate

and

harass

the

10

Furthermore, the yearbook photograph should enjoy protection under 17 V.S.C. 201(a),

11
12

as both the Defendantand photographycompanyshouldbe considered co-authors, by
way of defendant sitting for the photograph for the purposes of it being published in the

13

"Activities"

section

of

the

yearbook

for

Oakcrest

High

School

(Mays

Landing,

defendant.

14

Jersey),

Class

of

1997.

At

no

time

was

there

any

inference

or

release

which

would

New

school

15

that

this

photograph

could

be

used

in

the

manner

in

which

the

Plaintiff

has

used

it,

16

Defendant

alleges

that

Plaintiff

at

all

times

had

full

knowledge

that

he

was

engaging

and

infer

in

in

17 18 19 20 21
22

copyright violation in regardsto this photograph.

20.) The Plaintiff allegesthat the arguments forth aboveaspertainsto the alleged set conductof the Plaintiff shouldbe construed tamperingwith a witness(by way of as defendant being a witnessfor the defense, opposingparty), asthis move caused an the
defendant a feeling of undue stress, intimidation, and emotional distress. On these

23

grounds,the defendantseeksto havethis complaint dismissed,and sanctionsbrought

10
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

I ii,

,.

I

'

~-~",c..l..

,

a

n
1 against the Plaintiff, including but not limited to the Court deeming

n
these allegations 14,2006, plaintiff removed the photograph in question, as

2

"legally

frivolous".

3
4 21.) On or around November 5 despite the fact that

a

screenshot

exists

(Shown

in

the

section

"Proofs"-Item

D)

6
7

clearly shows the photograph exists. This claim is supported in the Source for this blog
entry, (Shown in the section "Proofs"-Item E), which clearly shows the plaintiff intends

8

to

show

this

photograph,

despite

the

fact

it

has

apparently

been

removed

from

9

location,

at:

http:/

/www

.mondoglobo.netlimages/intemetclub.~il2g.

On

December

its

10 11
12

2006, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff posted a blog entry, located at http://www.l0zenmonkeys.com/2006/12/27/crook-harass/
which sought information on "DMCA fraudmeister", referring

(Shown in "Proofs"-Item
to the Defendant.

27,

that

F)

13

Furthermore,

the

Plaintiff

inaccurately

stated

that

Defendant

owns

the

14 15 16 17
18

forsakethetroops.org. The Defendantneverat any time ownedthe rights to this domain, nor did he haveany part in registeringand/oroperatingit. Theseare potentially libelous statements, can be perceivedas "fighting words" and upon this action,the Defendant and seeks dismissthe Plaintiff's complaint,and to awardall relief soughtin the to
Defendant's counterclaim.

19
20 22.) By filing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff has used the legal system as a weapon in an

21 22 23

intentionally malicious manner, by attempting to intimidate Defendant by publishing the lawsuit on his website prior to its filing, and by continuing to post harassing material after the legal process began. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's conduct in this regard is in

11
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

;;;;;]

I

I

-

,

~,~~

I

domain

'

n
1
2 3 4
5

l

violationofU.S.C.1985(2),and so doing hasirreparablyinjured the defendantby § in
way of causingincreased traffic to his website,unwantedattention,exposure public to disdain,and harassing commentsfrom variousparties,including the plaintiff himself, with the full knowledgeof his counsel. Additional injuries include intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and other damages which may be amended as needed at a later

6

date.

7

8

23.)

The

Defendant

hereby

seeks

to

dismiss

any

and

all

of

the

plaintiff's

claims

9 10 11 12 13
14

charges, and seeksthe Court's imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff and counsel for filing a "legally frivolous" action.

24.) Defendant alleges that it would be an undue infringement on his rights under civil law if the Court were to issue an injunction forbidding any action on his part to
police and/or protect his rights in regards to the DMCA. It would further set a

15 16 17 18 19

dangerous precedent the immediatedetrimentof copyright holders,in unduefavor to of webmasters bloggerswho seekto ignore and intentionally abusethe law in and orderto publish any contentthey wish, regardless authorshipand copyright issues. of Therefore,Defendantseeksto causethe Court to dismissany and all requests upon the part of the Plaintiff for any form of injunctive relief asrequested the initial in
complaint.

20
21

22 23

25.)

The Defendantrepeats requestthat any and all motions and requests his on

the part of the Plaintiff for damages--injunctiveand monetary-as well as

12
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

111

,

and

~

1

Attorney's

fees, costs, disbursements, disgorgement, restitution, and/or any other

2

form

of

relief

be

dismissed

by

the

Court

with

3

4

On

the

grounds

and

allegations

set

forth

in

prejudice.

the

preceding

(')

Answer

to

5 6 7 8
9

Complaint,

the Defendant

seeks to have this complaint the Defendant

dismissed.

Independent

a

of

the status of the complaint, counterclaim

hereby submits the following

of damages incurred

as a direct result of this matter:

10

11

1.)

On

November

1,2006,

the

COUNTERCLAIM

plaintiff's

lawyers,

the

Electronic

12
13

Foundation, posted copies of the initial complaint on their website before it
was properly served upon the defendant. The defendant also announced it on

14
15

his blog, located at www.l Ozenmonkeys.com, (Shown in "Proofs"-Section
B) having full knowledge that defendant had not yet been served. It is the

16

defendant's

allegation

that

the

plaintiff

took

this

action

with

the

Frontier

intent

17

malice

and

18

2.)

The

Defendant

harassment.

submits

that

the

Plaintiff

has

waived

any

claim

of

19
20

damages. Essentially, this case is about publicity for his blog and for the
counsel for the Plaintiff, namely the EFF, who are known for perverting the

21

legal system for their need for publicity

and their desire to manipulate the law

22

to

their

liking,

which

is

to

the

detriment

of

upstanding

and

23

citizens such as the Defendant.

13
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-O6-6800-SBA

I

I

J..I

,

law-abiding

true

of

~

1

3.

)

The

defendant

seeks

damages

to

reimburse

him

for

actual

n

time,

materials,

2
3

costs related to defending this matter. Furthermore, Plaintiff's actions have
caused a disruption in Defendant's business operations, which consist mainly

4

of

income

derived

from

advertising

revenue.

Plaintiff's

actions

have

led

to

and

5

outcry

to

Defendant's

advertisers,

who

advertise

by

way

of

banner

6

"pay

per

click"

ads

on

Defendant's

various

web

sites.

Defendant

alleges

and/or

7
8

the Plaintiff's malicious actions caused the loss of most advertising revenue
sources. At the time of this filing, this amount of actual losses, inclusive of

9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16

estimated loss of advertisingrevenue,aswell as actualtime, costs,and materialspertainingto the defenseof Plaintiff's frivolous action, is estimated at $4,150.00,which includesreasonable compensation.Defendantreserves the right to amendthis amountasneeded.

4.)

Defendantfurther seekspunitive damages, the Plaintiff's actionshave as caused hateful, and aggressive a backlashby supporters the EFF and the of
Plaintiff. It is the Defendant's allegation that this was the desired result on the

17 18
19

part of the Plaintiff and his lawyers, which is evident in the announcing of this lawsuit, with complete paperwork posted, prior to the defendant being
properly notified and/or served. The defendant alleges this was done in an

20 21 22 23 5.)

intentional effort to harass, annoy,and unduly intimidate the Defendant.

The backlashhascaused defendant the unduestressand defendant considers this to be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the part of the

14 #C-06-6800-SBA
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM-

I !I~_",.

,

I,.

that

an

~

\.

)

\)

1 2 3
4

plaintiff, asthe plaintiff postedanotherentry on his blog on November6, 2006, entitled "Crook's InternetClub", (attached under"Proofs") wherehe continuedto maliciously violate the defendant'srights by postingyearbook
photographs from defendant's senior year of high school without his consent.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12

6.)

This action as hascaused defendant considerable the a amountof undue stress,and hasalso causedDefendantto be annoyedand feel unduly harassed by the Plaintiff's conduct. Defendantallegesthat the Plaintiff's actionshave caused irreparableand intentionaldamage, both to his reputationand business operations. Defendantseeksdamages aid in the recoveryfrom said to injuries.

7.)

To

aid

in

this

recovery,

Defendant

seeks

punitive

damages

~

in

the

amount

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 DATED:

$22,000,000.00, anotheramountdeemedfair andjust by a jury and/orthe or Court. Defendantreserves right to amendthis amountasneeded. the

8.) Defendantseeksthe Court'sdismissalthe plaintiffs complaintwith prejudice.

9.) Defendantpraysfor any and all other damages deemed just by the Court.

f

-l{

22

23

07

15
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM#C-06-6800-SBA

"'

Ii.

By:

,..l"~__cc."'"

of

17 16 13 12 11 10 15

9 8 4 3 1 2

14

6
5

7

,
X.../ Signed Before Notary ~

II

named,

I
and me Public on

ANSWER

Michael

jJl£1'!
sworn: this

" \,
~

J

AND

S.

/

Crook,

COUNTERCLAIM-

Commission

~ f---

who

Notary

day

16

submitted

Qualified

,
-

Michael

of

No.
Public

Expires

January

,~

to

State

S.

me

#C-O6-6800-SBA

Crook,

04ME5072663

February

2007,

Malcolm M. Merrill
of proper New

in Onondaga
3, York

appearing

appeared -U-~

identification.

'

:I

County
20Jol!:.

i
the Pro-Se above

22 19 14

13

10

20 11
9

21

23 5

12

17

2

4

15

1

3

16

6

7

18

8
Baldwinsville,

JEFFERY

Michael

Plaintiff

I

in

V

s.

Defendant

!

this

MICHAEL
DIEHL.

ill

(315) 350-3412

mike.crook@mcipdns.com

methods:
CROOK, NY 13027

matter

was

AFFIDAVIT

(1

8417 Oswego Rd. #179

S. Crook, Pro-Se

FOR

served

THE

)

)
)

)

)
)

)

)

)

upon

NORTHERN

OF

Case

the

SERVICE-

AFFIDAVIT

UNITED
STATES

attorneys

Number:

,

1
DISTRICT C-06-8600-SBA OF SERVICE OF CALIFORNIA

DISTRICT

#C-06-6800-SBA

for

the

Plaintiff

COURT ~

by

i

the

1.) Defendant hereby alleges, swears, and affirms that the Answer and Counterclaim

following

.--

\

II;,

~

~

1

2 3
4
5

Per Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5(a):

a.) DHL Next-Day

3:00pm

Corynne

delivery:

McSherry,

Lead

6

Electronic

Frontier Foundation

7
8

454 Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

9

Waybill

#: 56768378741

10 11 12 13 14
15

And

Jason Schultz, LeadAttorney Electronic Frontier Foundation 454Shotwell Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

16

Waybill

#: 56768978844

17

DATED:

18 19
20 Before me on this ~-day of January

By:

Attorney

1J-,~t~-

J

--

MichaelS. Crook,appearing Pro-Se
2007, appeared the above

22

Signed and sworn:

1>
who submitted 'If ,(1(

21

named,

Michael

S.

Crook,

to

me

proper

::

x~~

~jl/t

identification.

25

Malcolm

..

M.

Notary

Public

State

Merrill

of

New

26

No.

04ME5072663

27
2
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE#C-06-6800-SBA

Q.ual.jfied in Onondaga County
Commission Expires February 3, 20...&-

j

II

,

York

~

PROOFS
ITEM:

A

~

"

,

I!"

I

I

,

flirtatious

So

prostitutes," He

see

claims

day

and

The

answers,

think one article numbers But and He Clearly slight

emails,

Crook

ultimately Michael

As

who

little

apparently

also

what

his received last extra eyes, he

September

d!ggs

your

digg it

spin

from is

769

he's also

fake and following

is email

visited

Croo~

as

kind

"along

and

the

and

weather

cities

Michael reveals

wife on

we

enjoying sometimes

made

a

18th,

he asshole

ad

By Lou Cabron

almost often

couple

B

his

of asking conned

like

writes. and were

got

the

cup is

with

2006

people

the

hero's

the a

ambushing

II

guy

Crook?

claiming

15

to

co-workers'

lot

no wannabe,

breasts.")

"exposing years apparently your why additional

Fortuny

more

the

encourage

was

But

In the Company

even

about

attention.

would methods,

Kansas City ,and Anchorage

(possibly

he

pics,

"Casual

His

he's

ago,

tapped Encounter"

responses.

to instant

-

was

the

men

script,

And

respond

have

"Howard."

web

'.

also effort

the will

where

necessary

reaction

r--:,

man

(Just trolling

these

but

to with

perverts"

added

married) messaging

site deduced be

published

Crook

teach

he behind

of

he

(Possibly

two

posted

on

listings

guys,

I Lilt;'--VIIIP411) J"I "'VII" - I V L-"'II'VIVII""") \4 n",u£"I"') VI 3

describes

fake

replying

also

of Jerkoffs

will is

for the Not

a

because

teenaged comments

in

pretended

site

man

sex

and girls possesses

the

it.

yet

be

responses

for only

a

the

them.

for

picture

In

like

because

when identities

ads

another

"pathetic

him

all

into

to

on

names

this

his

five

is

his

,

girls

Craigslist, to He

on

the

his

and sending to

place and hypocritical for the behavior he's engaged in.

as original they

case,

other

see respondents to

with

a

Craig's

also be

sad

a

internet

pathological imagination

in

of

no

one his of

former

men"

on find

a

his

their

one

his

he's

cities

member

his

did

19-year-old

site.

post a

craigslist-perverts.org.")

prank

ward.)

which

List.

out?" photo

wife

responding online

actually

victims.

wives,

and

not

Mormon,

-

in

to

generated

and

only

Like

cheating

of

his Las

lacking,

is

he

moralism

In extract

of

research,

and

the

known

~

1999

readY

forum.)

asks. the "Check

his

female

pathetic, past

Vegas,

"~

disillusioned

in erection guy

( ~_t,

to

even

on

capable

he

(Adding

incidents,

one

the

his

less

for

that

student

whose out looking

He

his

Dayton,

was

ads.

but

web

case more-embarrassing

carrying

than

seems

brags wife. this

too

only

a

"I

site

that

Googled then

name

pathetic

name of a respondent, then claimed it appearedon other dating sites "including fag sites."
50 at the magazine up South

after

just

underweight

"What

that

Syracuse entirely

of

-Ed) their

responses

ads

their

story

sent

wanted he

putting

a

community,"

the

from

dispute

Jersey,

copycat.

used..."

the

do him

phone

If Jason Fortuny is similar to the "Chad" character from Neil LaBute's In the Company of Men, then

next

out

He

you

university with B-cup breasts, looking to hang out "and maybe enjoy a nice, safe sexual encounter." ("I don't care if you're married, single, engaged, whatever. Life is fun. Sex is natural. Friendship is great.") And naturally, when men responded, Michael published their pictures and emails on craigslist-perverts.org - a domain he created Wednesday.

about how religious programming was assigned spots on a local cable access show. (And the fact that a
a

to

publishing variations on his original ad. ("I'm 19, 5'4, 108 lbs, brown hair

""p.11.. .. ... 'V£"""'V"A")"."V"U ~VVVI 'VI "'-U"'-"V"'P"") -v, -J'"~V".., V/I

to

of

""~Ll.~

community. In southern Michael later and deer-in-headlights don't "scumbags" He Pacific

Perhaps

"He's obscure discussing explain Recently although troops,"

remains

But

the

join

Crook!"
~ words weasled for you're the reported need a all why A dick. to a which Dutch amlY,

lyrics?

criminal

Fortunyand

had

New

i he's

he

venue

garage "Coming

his

be their a

illegal

was

his

I and

~ disgrace...

racism

justice

(He's

can seen registered

he

Jersey,

online

but

Eurodance

called

way hooker

ilk

apparently was "pukes,"

band

foresee

immigrants.")

anaffiliation

even

I

performance

whether

I is soon!"

a

in

right

Crook activity, beaten

degree.

"" and

dick!)

attention

actually

this

called

of

after

two

You

a

onto

group.

Las

asking

our

country!"

day he trying

But

take Fuck

to

more

bulking

are

Permament

Michael

II lilt: \.-UIlIV(1JIY Jt:1I\.UII:' - I U L.t:11lVIUIlI\.CY:' UI

Vegas,

economy.")

\4

See also: Crook's Internet Club
can a TV with death to

!

(~

when

at

drew

Both good

solace

heartless,

He

"What

him!

his

least to

make

domains

in

a

This

writes

auction

by the belief a

up

this according sites, group thing...

remains

(Fuck

Vit:ULIlICj

some

standard-issue

in

angry idiots

was

a

spring

Ascent

led

community

each

career

you

that

though -

thatsoldiers

to

them

told

of

him!)

to

")

servicemen risk

other,

plagued

"preserve

racismworks.com

are

he to

his

an

of

and

uploaded out

he

off

manages

his

2005

appear

soulless,

appearance their

anger

Asshole.

was

crimmigrants.org

, of

of

from

to

web

beatdown

pissing by

are

life

for

nihilistic

cash

medically

the

appears

to

-

a

obscurity.

within

site,

over-compensated.

creating

you for

a

song

(Asshole!)

rights

be

though

in

sports-clothing

on

people

a

and

little

on

are from

("Coming

country...?

pranksters

about

sincere.

Fox

the

of their

unfit

ran

mean

Crook created related domains like opposethetroops, disownthetroops,
a that more He

familiarity

white Sean

web

("dedicated

News

off.

a

Fuck

him

notoriety.

for

grew

~

300-member

was

Technorati Tags: Craig's List, Fortuny, sex-baiting, sexbaiting, craigslist,~,

accident- including what he purportsareher phonenumbersand address.
One and than site Hannity. men soon, service.

to

where

hold

Let

hi-i-m.

store

obviously

up

you

blogger

their

It

called

their

composed an essay arguing that members of the military are overpaid. ("Financially

of

and

'em

also

in

a

its

to

are

and

website

Crook's

their

small-town

MySpace

Seven

("You're

first Fuck

taglines, exposing women."

die called

"Forsake

cruel

fan

claimed

is

~.

malicious

in

convention,

"pursuing"

Michael

club

years

which

combat

soldiers

followed

page.

")

ignorant

and citizensagainstthetroops

Michael also created a web page criticizing a 17-year-old drunk driver who killed her friend in a car
Recently and the

they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool.

Ironically, just four weeksbeforehis Craig's List prank, he'd senta spateof letterscomplainingabout copyright infringement.It's possiblethat this article may only further his goal of online infamy, thoughit

IlllV.11 ViVivi. I ULCIIII IUIII\.t:Y:'.\;UIIII~UUU/U71IO/IlI-lllt:-\;umpanY-Ol-jerkottsl

michael crook
Its and

for

earlier

Arizona,

Instead

His

later

will

an

speaking, it's the

site a we

he

by

;

n

PROOFS

ITEM:

B

~

!

~:::J~~

I I

,.:::

I

I

l'l' ana IV Len IVlullKey:) v:). 1V11~IIClel \.-rUUK ClIlUUIV1\.-f\ - 1V Lt:1I IVIU...

Illlp://WWW.l VZt:lI111UIIKeY:).~UIII/L.VVO/11/V 1/t:ll-~rUUK-arnca-laWSUltl

n
EFF and 10 Zen Monkeys vs. Michael Crook and DMCA

()

By Jeff Diehl
November J st., 2006

769

digg

I;)'.

Vote Reddit StOry 1

Social

it

griefing

a

la

Jason

Fortuny

and

Micbael

Crook

may

have

finally

been

taken

too

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is representing 10 Zen Monkeys in a civil lawsuit against griefer Michael Crook for abusing the DMCA
and violating our free speech rights.

In September, we published an article about Crook when he mimicked Jason Fortuny by trolling CraigsList and sex-baiting guys into giving him private information which he then revealed on his site (now offline), craigslist-perverts.org. He apparently did not like what we had to say. In a brash and hypocritical (though not at all surprising) move, Crook filed a bullshit DMCA take-down notice with our then-ISP, knowing that the "safe harbor" provision would compel the ISP to take immediate action, even before proof of copyright ownership was
examined.

I was personally given an ultimatum to remove the material cited in the notice (a TV screen capture of Crook's appearance on Fox News Channel), or have my account canceled. Needless to say, Crook did not own the rights to the image, and even ifhe did, there's a little thing
called "fair use" in the context of critical commentary.

Appalled that he was able to so easily, and without any onus of proof, jeopardize my standing with my ISP, I immediately set about moving
the site to local San Francisco ISP Laughing Squid, owned by myoid pal, Scott

his areexpensive, services but Scott more Iknew

would understand and respect free speech at least to the point of asking me for details before threatening to pull the plug on my site. The first thing I did after migrating 10 Zen Monkeys was re-insert the image of Crook into the offending article and, sure enough, within 24 hours he had sent another DMCA take-down notice to Laughing Squid's upstream provider. I'm sure he was emboldened by his success at forcing me to relocate my website once, and was trying for a repeat. But this time, Scott indeed called me to get the story. He was as angry as I was, and said I should contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (As an ISP, Scott hadn't seen this particular abuse before, and was - it showed just how easy it is under the current DMCA provisions to intimidate a website, for any reason whatsoever.)
concerned

"This is yet another case of someone intentionally misusing copyright law to try to shut down legitimate debate on an issue of public
interest, " said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "Crook certainly doesn't own the copyright to the news footage Fox News does." necessary is

The "safe harbor" provision of the law is meant to shield service providers from liability for any copyright violations that might be committed on their clients' websites. It basically states that, upon being notified by letter or email that there is content in violation of
copyright, they can avoid any legal consequences by immediately removing it. (The reason the "safe harbor" is even because

Beale

far.

the draconian copyright "protections" built into the DMCA notice doesn't require a court order, or any type of judicial scrutiny,

ones which sacrifice fair use among other things.) But since the take-down
it means that shady individuals or organizations can easily use the law

to

stifle

free

"Crook has used a bogus copyright claim as a pretext to squelch free speech," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "Unfortunately, it is easy to abuse DMCA takedown provisions and most internet speakers don't have the ability to fight back." I removed the original image in the Crook article and instead linked to a similar image residing on someone else's server (Crook is ~ ~ on the internet, so it's not difficult to find materials criticizing him [NSFW] on Google). Surprise! Crook didn't like that either, and on October 24th, he filed yet again, this time thinking that the DMCA could be used to
intimidate an ISP for a site that links to content that doesn't reside on their servers!

Crook

seems

speech.

to

have

a

particularly

malicious

interpretation

of

the

DMCA.

He

has

declared

on

his

blog

his

own

campaign

to

take-down

notices

on

sites

he

doesn't

like,

regardless

of

whether

he

owns

the

copyright

on

the

material

in

question.

From

his

serve

One site has gone completely down. It currently routes to a "Suspended" page. This site has remained down because the
webmaster hasn't responded to the complaint. I can't be responsible for

None of this is surprising from someone who has devoted so much time and energy finding others in a compromised state - whether it's horny men online, or wounded soldiers - and then systematically hurting them further, for nothing more than a fleeting, self-defeating
publicity.

Until now, the instances of social griefing made famous by Jason Fortuny and aped by Michael Crook have brought up mostly privacy

I,.

,

",

1

,

that.

blog:

of

I 411UI V LCII IVIVII"'CY:' v:.. tVII"114"1'-'I VV,,"(UIU UIVI,-,r\ - I V L"II IVIV...
f""

1"'p.11

I VLNIUIIVII""'Y:'."VIIIJ ,,"VVVII II V II '-11-'" Vv"'-WII"a-laW:'UILI

r"""\

issues. In the case of Crook's abuse of DMCA, we see the same childish, ill-intentioned publicity-seeking, but that's not to say there's no difference between Fortuny and Crook. Fortuny has never tried to stop anyone from saying anything about him - in fact, he seems to enjoy the direct negative criticisms he's received. Crook, on the other hand, is clearly operating on a level of complexity that is far beyond his capacities - he wants to be notorious, but then uses unrelated, legalistic (though illegal!) manipulations to silence those who speak out against him. Despite his comical claim to the title of copyright defender, he is creating a real chilling effect on free speech.
Some of the targets of Crook's DMCA exploits have self-censored, in part because to give him attention is a reward he doesn't deserve, but also because they don't understand their rights and cannot afford to fight. The takedown provision of this law is bad for publishers

anyone who cares about free speech, and Crook has clearly demonstrated a reason why. He has also stupidly underestimated the resolve of this publication; we hope to set an example of what can be done when First Amendment rights are fully understood, nurtured, and worn into
battle.

Update: Crook taught

students

how

to properly

use the internet

Crook serves DMCA takedown notice to BoingBoing. (BB gets permission from Fox News to post image.) Tucker Max deconstructs Crook
See also:

EFF's press release PDF of complaint
In the Company Jason Fortuny of Jerkoffs Speaks

The Secret Life of Jason Fortuny Good Griefers: Fortuny vs. Crook T echnorati Tags: ~, ~ fu!1!illY., ~, 10 zen monkeys, first amendment, free speech

769
diggs dlgg It

Vote Reddit StorY :1. Show some love and subscribe:

~IMQ!!!I~
IE ~-IE-"'-Im==-~ IE"-'~-,

IEy"~'-IE~~."'-:

Add to Digg

e

Add to Reddit

1:.~~"~,'il~.",H « Libertarian Chick Fights Boobs With Boobs Interview With Vallevwag Nick Douglas»
~

Commentsfeed for this post: ~ You can skip to the end and leavea response. Pinging is currently not allowed. 24 Responses
1. Marty

to

"EFF

and

10

Zen

Monkeys

VS.

Michael

Crook

and

Says:

November 1st. 2006 at 6: 14 pm

I love how he calls the EFF hippies in his pressrelease.If a hippy is someone that can be critical of other peopleand their actions, then call us hippies.
2. Mama Fox Says: November 1st.2006 at 7:25 pm Glad to hear of this news. Maybe they can ask for his banishment of being online also or at the least owning websites or blogs

II

.

DMCA"

and

n
-

PROOFS

ITEM:

","l.~~c

II

,

C

\..J

~

n

'-

~

10a8-1

..

Ct"'."""""

c.,..

.101..

~-,.

"WO.?Iwl.1ie.t..

rIoofo.

~

"--/)

[k t'" "'~ '.,.cr, """'" 1"" "'"
,,: ~ .""!,,-""""""".,,.c~,':OO'jl'~'.~;""~'-"Sr,,~j'" "'"'"'. ",",jA" ,jA'cr , ,.,.." OTT ,. ",... co, . """

,jA

.AI

,jA-~t..

m

'-""'

(~.

1

G~-'-co.

~&:u

.

Cl-ook.s "'~""-',;"'"
""~""""k

Internet

Club

~~'L"1~~!",,--,--,,

...~
Internet

--~

'.""]do.."
~-

u

b

.Am"'_'xtr.~~"
-NY,..,.."

CI

~

d

,"

.w"""..~J

"HusoIY=o.rt_'
~7, -R~.

-"-~~

-,~

.,.-~_.==..",;,'..."-:
' --,.--,-,,--

-..

,-

.w"-wr.,,..

"-~

-"."'""9 ',_.cl..."",oatb...
~"","".n"'"
-l -~~~

"d 'M~~.ib"

.-

h.'."" . -

:::-':'"'-':"= = ---~-

-~-£~~~. ~.,

'-..
1oalo4 fipuw,Miob..JC"""l:.who.."",bo ,~..;.f_A,mM~.-

=,~;~

",,__h,

55

TM
~.f"r""""j..,.11v..~;r~"';;n~.rl'h

...",,"bo.~~.u,

.'8"§~~..iJ~Q

~~ ~--~7=.;.._!Ii

~ ~
~. ~1:!1:J

0 0 :: ~ Q j+ ,cO;SO, X .. w.. Atc
,i.\2i--_o.a..c:c'-_c:~~~-~:.c

:~F"~'-"'"

r8Qaok.._cu

1~

L~_L-

._,-~,

--

~..s ---

:t:J~

~,- ';'ili'_1I=-~'1 .. - .

'I/I~

\

r

II

I

,

I.

TUO5doy

.o:~~

,rOOKS Internet LIUO - IV Len IvlonKeys ta weozme) (\

IILLp:IIWWw.luzt:nmOnKt:Y:).CUIl1/~VVO/ll/VO/crUUK-m[ernet-club-roundup/

()

Crook's Internet Club
By Lou Cabron November6th. 2006
478

digg

"};

Vote Reddit Story 2 The Internet's
using nefarious

it

most hated figure, Michael Crook, who is on the verge of being legally humiliated in court thanks to griefer dumbfuckery
websites, belonged to the Internet Club in high school, where he trained students "on how to use the Internet properly."

It

makes

one

wonder

what

the

curriculum

must

have

consisted

of...

.
.

Hairstyling

for

Web

Net

EtiQuette

101

. Protecting Your Privacy . How to Leverage the Internet to Make Everyone Desoise You (Including Every Armed Human in America!)
. Legal Pitfalls Online

Who could've known, back in the year of 1997, to what~ Mr. Crook's life would lead? Somehow, a modest start showing newbies the basics of internet technology allowed him to, less than 10 years later, rise to the position he holds now: President and CEO of Michael Crook Internet Properties!
UPDATE

In

the

last

five

days

millions

Video

of

web

surfers

have

learned

the

legend

of

Michael

Crook

-

his

story,

his

image,

and

his

attempts

to

squelch

it

by abusing a badly-written copyright law. Crook objects to the use of a goofy picture taken from his 2005 appearance on the Fox News network. But Xeni Jardin, a BoingBoing writer, posted that she's since contacted a producer at Fox News, saying they'd "laughed, asked why Crook was claiming rights to an image that Fox produced, then said Fox had no problem with BoingBoing or anyone else posting the thumbnail image online." - showing people online how easily copyright law can be mis-used. But in a new twist, they're responding, rising up in an an impromptu celebration of free speech. TailRank CEO Kevin Burton re-published the photo, urging Michael Crook: "Please send me a fake DMCA takedown notice... I'm going to auction it off on eBay and give the proceeds to the EFF!" Fellow griefer Tucker Max also republished Crook's photo, writing that he was calling Crook's bluff and adding "Fair warning: I OWNED the last lazy-eyed douche to come at me." (A debate has apparently been scheduled between the two for Wednesday at 3pm Eastern time.)
It's becoming a giant parable

The writers at TechnOccult not only re-published the photo on their!?lQg and MySpace page they urged othersto do so as well, even including the necessary HTML text. "By standing up to intimidation and spreading the word about this case," they wrote, "you can help the
fight for free speech online." And soon ~ ~ ~ appearing Q!} QlQM ~ ~ ~. Pranksters at Fark.com even started a photoshopping Crook's picture into new satirical settings, showing him assassinating President Lincoln, tormenting William Shatner, contest, and

-

appearing as the photograph on a box containing a douche. IN THE COMPANY OF GRIEFERS

Also republishing Crook's photo was the original CraigsList sex pranker, Jason Fortuny, who also dared Crook to send him a DMCA notice. ("Operators are standing by.") Ironically, Crook first gained the attention of 10 Zen Monkeys after mimicking Fortuny's Craig's list experiment of republishing the responses he received to a fake ad pretending to be a woman seeking casual sex. Now the two men are apparently locked in a weird online rivalry. Friday Fortuny went to the trouble of adding a new entry to his official blog scrolling 20 copies of Crook's photo, along with more abusive commentary. ("This is Michael Crook. He has AWESOME hair. In his spare time, he likes to DMCA websites.") How did Fortuny ~ the DMCA notices he received? "I send the counter notification to my webhost, who then notifies your attorney, and your attorney notifies you and follows up with something like 'this will cost thousands of dollars to follow through.' And then you swallow, and smack your forehead, and you don't respond within the alloted 14 day period specified in the counter notification and my shit goes back up... Thanks for playing. All contestants on the RFJason Show get 'The Craigslist Experiment' home game and free
turtlewax."

MICHAEL

CROOK
RESPONDS
II ,

Crook joined the online conversation, and Friday even created a new domain - FuckEFF .org. Lambasting "the almighty Electronic Freedom

rOOKs Irnernel \.-IUD- IV Len lVlunKeys~a weuzlIlt:)
n

Illlp.IIWWW.lVZt:lUllVIIl\.t:y:;.~VllI/LVVV/ll/VV/l.;lVVl\.-llllt:11lt:l-~IUU-IVUIIUUI!I
~

Frontier," he decriesthe group's lawsuit as malicious prosecution-then eternalfinancial misery for going after me."

15 words later writes "I will go broke ensuring[Jeff Diehl] incurs

Crook saysthe action againsthim will "exposearroganthippies suchas the EFF and Jeff Diehl" - not as defendersof free speech,but as "arrogantabusersof the legal system."Apparently confusedby the word "frontier," Crook free associates the group is "renegades that who feel the Internet is the Wild West, and that they can do whateverthey wish." Jeff Diehl and the EFF are "hippies," he writes again, but thwartedby the DMCA, they cannot"rule the internet." "All of this fuss could have beenavoided," he writes wishfully, "had they simply shut up, askedno questions,adn [sic] complied with the law." Calling the DMCA a "wonderful law," Crook arguesthat the EFF suit "is about publicity and pity-whoring..." (Although his own
official statement on the matter includes contact information for any media outlets seeking to interview him.) In fact, later his position attention-seeking becomes more clear. "It's unfortunate that their true movitation is intimidation, publicity, and pity-whoring" he writeson

above four Google AdSense

ads.

To draw more traffic from searchengines,Crook augmented anti-EFF pagewith over a dozendifferent hidden keywordsin its HTML his
code, including "hippie lawyers," "jackasses," and "whiners."

And he's also helpfully includes a bannerad whereyou can downloadFirefox. At the bottom of his web pagehe's postedthat it's copyrightedto "Michael Crook InternetProperties"- so don't get any funny ideas.Although ironically, all four of his AdSenseads are recommending attorneys.("'We Fight For and Defend Your Rights! Call24n ") THE MONKEY'S BARREL As Crook voiced his opinions about imagecontrol, the online world apparentlydecidedto join the discussion.Saturdaysomeonesent Michael Crook's dorky high schoolyearbookphotosto 10 Zen Monkeysin a show of support,saying they'd goneto the sameschool as Crook and rememberingthat "he was alwayskind of a spaz." (In the yearbook's section for a quote or favorite memory,Crook offered "I'm
the great Cornhuho!")

It's just one of many responses the original article. "Been there, donethat," wrote a director from Black Box Voting, adding he "beat to Diebold Election SystemsInc. when they were going nuts trying to DMCA-slam websites." Another commenterchallengedCrook's argumentthat his presence the photo grantshim a copyright, saying it raisesan interesting in question"about the photoshe publishedof men who had answered CraigsList ad. (Who would presumablythen enjoy the same his
copyrights.)"

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY !:!P. ~ ~ Qf conversations, about the sametopic: a flaw in online copyright all
It's an exciting moment, as the tubes of the internet fill

law.

A law studentat New York Law School~ that the legislation "promotesa 'shoot first, ask questionslater' response from ISPs," but notesthat the counter-notificationpolicy also createsa "game of chicken" situation in which "the ISP is only obligatedto listen to the last party to speakon the issue." He identifies the problem as the default assumptionthat a copyright infringement is taking place. "If an ISP
were to contact users ofDMCA takedown notices before removing the material, this assumption isn't that strong, but most ISPs don't

behavethis way... once the ISP gets a takedownnotice of any sort it will usuallyjust pull the material down and let the user know in due course."And even if a counter-notificationis filed, the ISP still observesa to-day period of time wherethe contested material remains
offline.

Technologywriter ThomasHawk ~ "I think it's abusiveto usethe DMCA, a law that was meantto be usedfor copyright ownersto havetheir copyrightedmaterial taken off the internet, abusedand usedas a tool of censorship."And Plagiarism Todaylinks to an academic ~ from earlier this year offering statisticsshowingthe DMCA being mis-applied.The study shows30% of the DMCA takedownnotices being marredby obvious issueslike fair useor the targeting of material which couldn't be copyrighted.Nine percentare incomplete.And
apparently over half the notices sent to Google were targeting competitors, with over a third targeting sites which weren't even in the U.S.

ThursdayPlagiarism Todayobservedthat "The problemswith Crook's DMCA notices are so numerousthat it is hard to know where to begin." Calling the mistakes"a sign of extremerecklessness, malice," they arguethat Crook holds no claim to the image's copyright, and or
points out the existence of a well-known exemption for the "fair use" of copyrighted materials.

"In the end," they add, "it appears that Crook has donethe most damageto himself. The photographhe soughtto bury is now plasteredall over the Web, his name is now eternally connectedwith this matter and, perhapsworst of all, he's on the wrong end of an EFF lawsuit." AN ETERNAL
WAR?

Crook has startedusing new wording in the ~ ~ he's beensending,now claiming he enjoys a "jurisdiction" over the photo, simply because appearsin it. Significantly, in the earlier notice which first caught the EFF's attention,Crook had written: "I swear,under he penaltyof perjury.. .that I am the copyright owner or am authorizedto act on behalf of the owner of an exclusivecopyright..." Crook now swearsonly that he is the copyright owner "in that the image,though belonging to anothersource,is of me, therebygiving me ccrtain
copyright rights "

~

II

.

:rook's Internet Llub

-

IU

Len

Monkeys

(a

webzme)

(\

http://Www.luzenmonkeys.com/2006/ll/U6/crook-mternet-club-roundup/

~

"Feel

that?"

one BoingBoing readerrcsJ)<)ndcd. as though millions of photojournalistssuddenlybeganlaughing hysterically at once..." "It's

A new fight has also erupted over the video footage where Crook's image originated. Thursday TailRank's Kevin Burton was surprised that YouTube had rcmo\cd a movic showing Crook's disastrous appearance on Fox News. Burton contacted a friend at YouTube who
apparently restored the footage but by Saturday night had rcmovcd Ihc vidco again, displaying its standard red-box warning. ("This

has been removed at the request of copyright owner Michael Crook because its content was used without permission.") But the post-Google era may ultimately bring a new willingness to challenge any perceived mis-handling of copyright claims. Burton simply
linked to another copy of the footage he'd found elsewhere online and hosted another copy himself.

Update: Tucker Max de-constructs Crook
See also:

In

the

Company

of

EFF vs. Crook

Jerkoft"s

478

digg

01"1'.)"

Vote Reddit StOry 1 Show some love and subscribe:
~I~I~

1

I-"~'Add to Digg
1.~~..~,'il~.~tM

~

Im--o..-

Im

1-'3~""-,
Add to Reddit

« Great Moments in the War Against DMCA
Election Fallout: 24 Hours Later »

Commentsfeed for this post: ~
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

5

Responses

to

"Crook's

Internet

I.

Jake

November7th, 2006 at 12:45pm His website says that you stole that picture... Very interesting... Because I looked on his website, and the only picture I saw anywhere was the one he re-posted on his front page, tha he actually took from you..lol He also seems to think that he holds the copyright to yearbok photos that were distributed publicly among his classmates... I was on the news once as a kid riding my bike in a flood... Those bastards need to pay me!!!
2. ~ Says:

November7th. 2006 at 4:03 pm
WOW!

Now he claims he never had any kids nor has a wife. Well maybe the wife finally got smart and left his ass, but he must have forgotten the interviews he ha,d First with NHB where he mennions child and wife who divorced him (This would be the 15 year old he slept with from what HE said in the interview), and than Steve and DC (2nd interview where he also admits he'd get his as whooped bya Vet after they aksed him when he was going to fight the vet after offering to) show where he mentions wife( differant
one) and child too.

3. !lil1 Says:
November7th. 2006 at 9:34 pm

Says:

Club"

~

it

video

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.