Recording Copyright Extortion Collection Telephone Calls

[stinger]

Kyle, a well thought out and structured argument.

I would hope that if you were brought to this site through an abuse by Getty or McCormack IP, you would use your passion and knack for argument to clue the Attorney General of WA, the Washington Bar Association, the Better Business Bureau, and others in on the abuses these firms are wreaking on the "little people".

[Janus]

Do note that this discussion took place over two days in early June 2012. It may be that the views expressed have changed over time. Ten months is a long time in the internet.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I didn't miss your point either. My point is that I don't feel particularly good about breaking the law or encouraging others to do so in order to fight a wrong.

It's the same reason I'm against torturing suspected terrorists. Whatever we gain from breaking the law is not worth what we loose. I prefer to hold the moral high ground.

But like I have always said, it's your site and your rules. I thought about just sitting out this thread, but it bothered me a little last night and so I decided to at least post my point of view. Who knows, maybe I'll change your mind.
 
Obviously you couched it more in terms of what YOU would do. But I read a "call to action" in there. I'm a little concerned about the same people that didn't know grabbing an image from Google would be an issue also getting burned for invasion of privacy.

Having this content would obviously make for juicy content for the site. But there is a solution that doesn't involve breaking the law. I would propose that someone, maybe you, within the context of "citizen journalist" could contact the lawyers, the photographers, the stock company owners, or any other interested party and let them know that you are reporting on this issue and would like to conduct a recorded interview.

As long as they are made aware that the conversation is being recorded, there is no invasion of privacy issue and I think you will be surprised at the results.

Finally, there are some unfortunate implications that go along with it, but I do get "your" point, that's just not how you would feel comfortable handling it, and disagree with the methods...and that's fine, that's why Matt is doing it, and others feel his rage and indignance too. The battle isn't for everyone. It may involve sacrifice and injury, but for a worthy cause, to some it's worth the price. "My" point here is to show "how" I see things differently! This is ultimately an issue of conscience...I can sleep soundly and peacefully if I "unlawfully" record a conversation with some douchebag that's out to cause me harm. Maybe you can't. People are convicted by their conscience for a number of things...the big question is why? The bible has an interesting verse where God says: "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge!" I know when something is right and wrong because the law of God has been written in my heart. It's wrong to have a law that protects criminal behavior...that's no just law, but is in itself a crime.

@Kyle:

I'm not going to spend a great deal of time arguing your points. Heck, if you live in a state that only requires single-party permission to record phone calls, this conversation may be moot. (In those cases you can just do it.)

My only point is that recording these conversations and then posting them on ELI for everyone to listen to MAY get you into trouble. I suspect that if you were to ask Matt his feelings about crossing the line into the legal gray area TODAY, he may feel slightly different then he did last June. It's easy for us to all say "Hey all's fair in war and this is a war." But the reality is, the actions people take have real repercussions.

If you wish to secretly record your adversary and then post them on this site for all to listen to, trust me I will listen to them and give you feedback on how to handle your case. But I also think it is important that you (and others who wish to record and share their calls) be aware that this can be used against you.

In my general opinion, secretly recording a conversation with a scam artist is fine. Playing it back for trusted friends and advisers to give you advice is smart. Posting it on an open, public, Internet site can (and probably) will get you into legal hot water.

Now if you have the extra several thousand dollars laying around to fight this, and if you feel this is the best use of your time, then by all means, go forth.

[lucia]

Oddly, while I might not have done as Matt advocated back in June 2012, I might do so now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/illinois-police-recording_n_2191800.html

CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered another blow to a 50-year-old anti-eavesdropping law in Illinois, choosing to let stand a lower court finding that key parts of the hotly debated law run counter to constitutional protections of free speech.

In that critical lower-court ruling in May, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law – one of the toughest of its kind in the country – violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.

I'm in the 7th circuit's jurisdiction. So, I think unless SCOTUS overrules this, Illinois's law is kaput. I'm not entirely sure where things stand now though. Illinois appealed. Scotus did not take the appeal. Illinois will presumably write a new law, but in the meantime, it looks like it might be legal to record in Illinois. 

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

Oddly, while I might not have done as Matt advocated back in June 2012, I might do so now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/illinois-police-recording_n_2191800.html

CHICAGO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered another blow to a 50-year-old anti-eavesdropping law in Illinois, choosing to let stand a lower court finding that key parts of the hotly debated law run counter to constitutional protections of free speech.

In that critical lower-court ruling in May, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law – one of the toughest of its kind in the country – violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.

I'm in the 7th circuit's jurisdiction. So, I think unless SCOTUS overrules this, Illinois's law is kaput. I'm not entirely sure where things stand now though. Illinois appealed. Scotus did not take the appeal. Illinois will presumably write a new law, but in the meantime, it looks like it might be legal to record in Illinois.

Lucia, the key part of that law is that it is this:

the law – one of the toughest of its kind in the country – violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.

But I believe the recording of a telephone call is violating an individual's expectation and right to privacy on a private phone call. I believe there is a distinction here.

But once again, if you and Kyle wish to wiretap your Getty phone calls and share it on this forum, I guarantee I will listen to it and offer my opinion. I just think that before people are advised to post these conversations on the site, they should be aware of possible repercussions.

And again I will point out that you do not need to obtain consent from your adversary. You merely need to state that you will be recording the conversation. If they are a legitimate business, why would they have a problem with this?

[lucia]

Jerry--
Except that there have now been at least two cases ruling against the law and I think the final one was very broad basically tossing the whole darn law in it's entirety.  Illinois has to go back and rewrite and during the interim, I think we have no law!! (I'd be careful mind you. My phone isn't set up to record right now and I'd double check before doing it. But I think right now, Illinois's law just went 'poof'.

[lucia]

Hmm.. yeah. It looks like the ruling only applies to recording of police officers on duty.

[Oscar Michelen]

Lucia - yes that law only applies to recording public officials from a public street. But please remember that the person being recorded also has to be in a one-party state - not just the person doing the recording. So unless you can verify where the person is when you are talking to hem and then verify  that their location is with in a one-party state, you can record the conversation. If it is particularly strong, threatening and over-the-top you 'd probably do better by sending it to the local Attorney general's office rather than  posting it on ELI. Here's a link to the Wiki page that covers the subject and lists two party states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws