This post is stale but I wanted to update something I wrote long ago:
Here's the thing. You already know that "the copyright cow" probably doesn't like some people. And he might not mind "getting" some people. If you taped him in violation of laws of the State of Washington, and he found out, it would not be surprising if he tried to use the information of that illegal behavior to "get" the person who did the taping.
I already said I, myself, wouldn't tape without asking. But certainly, I wouldn't tape in violation of the law if I thought it would give an enemy who wants to "get" me an axe to chop my head off. Why give them a weapon?
I live in Illinois. Back when I wrote this, Illinois itself was a "two party consent" state. So my recording without getting permission from the other party would have been viewed as violating law in my own state not just potentially that of the other state if the call came from somewhere like WA state. This has changed.
In March 2014, the Illinois State Court decreed that Illinois's two party consent statute violated the US Constitutions 1st amendment.
The digital media law project writes:
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/illinois-recording-lawIn People v. Melongo, Docket No. 114852 (Ill. Mar. 20, 2014), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Illinois' two-party eavesdropping statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1, -2 (scroll down), was unconstitutional on its face. The statute made it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation, regardless of whether the parties had an expectation of privacy. The Court held that the recording provisions of the statute, as written, adversely affected the First Amendment rights of people making recordings in a substantial number of circumstances where there were no legitimate privacy interests. The Court further held that a provision of the statute prohibiting the disclosure of recordings likewise ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The Illinois Supreme Court doesn't speak for other states so I would still not record calls from WA state without permission. However, if the argument that a 2 party consent law violates the US 1st amendment, it's possible such an argument could prevail in other States that have similar laws.
That said: it is also worth nothing that exception clauses exist in some 2-party consent laws-- even those from WA state. For example the WA state law (which might apply to calls from a Seattle based office like Tim McCormacks) states"
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
So, in WA, it appears that if the call involves unlawful requests or demands recording 2party consent is no longer required; the same holds if calls are made 'repeatedly". Of course, we can all argue about whether the demands for money made on various calls alleging copyright infringement are or are not unlawful or whether they are of sufficient frequency to be deemed "repeatedly". But if the person recorded were to lodge a complaint, they would need to defend their demands as being lawful and calls as not being done 'repeatedly', as if either of those two apply, recording becomes 1 party consent.
I don't know if it's
illegal to represent a claim as a debt, but I wouldn't be surprised if a judge frowned on such that sort of spurious claim. I also would not be surprised if a judge didn't see more than one or two phone unsolicited calls pressing someone to pay a copyright claim as potentially being "repeated". I know I would see three as
certainly falling in the category of "repeated".
Those who do receive such call might wish to look up laws in various states to see if the state has 1 party or 2 party consent. If it falls under 2 party consent, carefully check whether their recording doesn't fall under an exception to 2 party consent. Obviously, one can't check prior to the first call, but one can do so after the first call. A second or third call might easily characterized as "repeated"-- though that is a risk the person electing to record would be taking.
Topic: Tape Recording Conversations (Read 20539 times)