22 21

20
16 14
10
11
9

17
13

15
12
5
4

23
2
1

18
8
3

19
JEFFERY
MICHAEL
Baldwinsville,
1.)
Plaintiff

I'WffSC""
Michael

Diehl
Michael
V
Telephone:
s.
Defendant

I 1
CROOK,
("Plaintiff")
NY
Crook
ANSWER
legal-cases@mcipdns.com

DIEHL,
13027
("Defendant")
n
8417 Oswego Rd. #179

FOR
S. Crook, Pro-Se

and
(315) 350-3412

AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
THE
)
) )
)
)
)

)
acknowledges
)

)
)
COUNTERCLAIM-
NORTHERN
ANSWER
Case
hereby
UNITED
STATES
No:
service
acknowledges
I'~
1
C-06-8600-SBA
AND
DISTRICT

by
DISTRICT
filed with the Court by counsel for the Plaintiff.
COUNTERCLAIM
a
voluntary
the
OF

Complaint
~
COURT
Waiver
CALIFORNIA

#C-06-6800-SBA
of
of
Jeffrey
Service,
II
L-,
 21
20
10
17 13
16 12 11
19 15
6
9 5
3
8
18
14
4

22
2
allegations
matter,
1.)
alleges:
3.)
2.)
1.)
1

forth
The
Defendant
Defendant Defendant
America.
is inappropriate
COMES
a
joins
by
resident
Defendant
virtue
set
NOW
Plaintiff
denies hereby
is
forth
the following
of
to the California
ANSWER
a
of
business
bona
at
Onondaga
it
by
this
any
being
Michael
accepts
the
fide
("'\

Answer
time
entry
conduct.
Plaintiff
in a demand

"legally
AND
citizen
Constitution
County,
ANSWER
the
seeks
into
S. Crook
jurisdiction
COUNTERCLAIM-
of
in
the
frivolous". the
and related
for a jury

within
the
legal
jurisdiction
dismissal
and other

related
trial.

I
age
2
("Defendant"),
the
of
within
the
Failing
matters

Counterclaim
State
Complaint:
JURISDICTION

of
of
Court
the
the
-,
of
the
that
Plaintiff's
#C-O6-6800-SBA
New
of sound
State
for
pertaining

United
request,
purposes
in response
York,
mind
of
States
California
-n

complaint
to any

the
United
of
Defendant
of
and legal
this
America,
States
allegations

as
to the charges
in
matter,
pertains
this
of

age who

and
of
sets
and
and
..-
 n
&
1 1.) Defendant submits the plaintiff has no cause of action as relates to the alleged
2
expenses
incurred
in
relation
to
a
new
web
host,
as
outlined
under
"Factual
3
Allegations",
number
14.
By
choosing
to
intentionally
and
maliciously
4 circumvent a lawful request under the provisions set forth in the Digital
5
Millennium
Copyright
Act
of
1998
("DMCA
")
by
simply
moving
to
an
enabling
6 provider suchas Laughing Squid,the Plaintiff shouldnot be entitled to any form

7 of damages.

8
9
2.)
By
his
own
admission,
the
Plaintiff
has
alleged
that
he
voluntarily
moved
10 ("Factual Allegations", Provision 14) to anotherserviceprovider without being

11 askedand/orforced to leave,the Plaintiff assumedall responsibilitiesrelatedto

12
choosing
a
new
host,
including
but
not
limited
to
any
increase
in
hosting
fees,
as
13 well any costs associated with the move. Defendant repeats his request for the
14
Court
to
dismiss
this
claim,
as
well
as
any
and
all
of
Plaintiff's
claims
as
pertains
15 to damages,attorney'sfees,and any other form of reimbursementand/or

16 damages,whetherfinancial or injunctive.

17

18 3.) Defendantdeniesinterferencewith contractsor businessarrangements,asthe

19
Plaintiff
has
alleged.
As
already
mentioned,
Defendant
alleges
that
the
Plaintiff's
20 own actions led to his alleged increased costs, and the Plaintiff's actions forced
21
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
that
23 becausePlaintiff voluntarily moved to a new service provider, he assumed all

3
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-O6-6800-SBA
co!. . ,
l.-c"
 ~
A
~
~
"~,
J

,',
A
!

1 tinancialliabilities relating to that decision,andtherefore,Defendantseeksthe

2
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 would otherwiseconsiderunderthe provisionsof § 17200et sq.

6 4.) Defendantallegesthat his actionsdid not meetthe qualificationsof unfair,

7
fraudulent
or
misleading
business
practices.
Complaints
were
made
to
the
8
Plaintiff's
service
providers
based
upon
a
good
faith
belief
that
there
was
an
9
infringement
of
copyright
through
the
natural
course
of
his
DMCA
complaint.
10 Because the Plaintiff refused to comply with what the Defendant had a good faith
11
belief
to
believe
was
a
lawful
DMCA
order,
Defendant
was
forced
to
police
his
12 rights by notifying any and all enablingagentsof the infringement. Defendant

13 deniesPlaintiff's allegationsthat the noticeswere sentwith the intent of malice,

14 or intent to "terminate,interferewith, interrupt, or otherwiselimit" the rights of

15 Plaintiff. The Plaintiff placedhis own rights in jeopardy by way of refusingto

16
comply
with
the
DMCA.
Furthermore,
Plaintiff
has
not
suffered
any
injuries,
17 especially not "substantially" or "irreparably". It should be noted that

18 www.l Ozenmonkeys.com,upon information and belief, is still online, as are all of

19 Plaintiff's other web properties, thereby negating this claim on the part of the
20
Plaintiff.
Defendant
alleges
that
the
Plaintiff
did
not
meet
his
obligations
as
a
21 content provider, and as such should be expected to bear the costs related to his
22
conduct.
On
that
basis,
Defendant
repeats
his
request
for
the
Court
to
dismiss
any
4
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-06-6800-SBA
,
'
""A
I:
I
.-
 n ("')

1 and all claims of damageand/orharm, including, but not limited to

2 reimbursement,disgorgement,and restitution.

4 5.) Defendantallegesthat for the purposesof the Plaintitrs claims of unfair,

5 unlawful, and fraudulentbusinesspractices-all of saidclaims the Defendant

6 herebydenies--the Defendantis not in violation of the California Constitution,as

7 Defendantdoesnot resideor do businesswithin the Stateof California.

8 Defendantthereforeseeksto causethe Court to dismissthis claim on the part of

9
the
Plaintiff,
as
well
as
any
and
all
charges
pertaining
to
unfair,
unlawful,
and
10 fraudulentbusinesspracticessetforth by the Plaintiff.

11
12
6.)
Defendant
alleges
that
the
Plaintiff
suffered
no
loss
to
his
rights
to
freedom
of
13 speech,not withstanding the fact that he abused said rights with his malicious and
14
intentional
purpose
of
harassment
and
annoyance
upon
the
Defendant.
Defendant
15 alleges that the Plaintiff has abusedthe provisions of17 U.S.C. 107(1-4), in that

16 his comments were not intended to criticize the Defendant or report news, rather
17
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
to
19 dismissany and all claims upon the part of Plaintiff that pertainto allegationsof

20 lost free speechand any other rights underthe Copyright Act of the United States

21 of America, andthe United StatesConstitution,or any other law, whetherlocal,

22 state,or federal.

23

5
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-O6-6800-SBA
","- I
 ~
n
1
7.)
Defendant
admits
to
the
Plaintiff's
claim
that
he
submitted
numerous
DMCA
2
notices
to
websites
and
their
hosts,
who
posted
material
that
the
Defendant
felt,
in
3
good
faith,
to
be
in
violation
of
Defendant's
DMCA
rights.
This
solidifies
4 Defendant'sgood faith belief in the validity of said documents.

6 8.) In regardsto allegedviolation of l' V.S.C. 512(f), the Defendantallegesthereis

7 a copyright held by the Defendant,despitethe allegationsof the Plaintiff.

8 Specifically,the Defendantrefersthe Court and Plaintiff to I' V.S.C. 201(a).

10
11
9.)
Defendant
alleges
that
as
he
was
the
person
who
provided
a
substantial
portion
12
of
the
material
in
question
("the
interview")
on
Fox
News
Channel
("FNC")
in
13 May 2005, the Defendant at that time became a "co-author" of the "original
14
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
the
16 interview to be provided to satellite and cable systems, as well as other modes of
17
delivery
on
the
part
ofFNC.
18 10.) Defendant therefore alleges that the co-authorship is shared with Fox

V.S.C.201(a)
19
News
Channel
in
regards
to
his
specific
interview,
by
way
of
l'
20 and in that regard,he shouldenjoy all the rights and privilegesthereof,including,
21
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
,
 20
17
16 15
19
2
6
5 3
1
8
4

18

22
21
10

14
12

13
11
11.)
12.)
justification
transfer
existence,
considered
this
preceding
his
Infringement",
28,
I
rights
I
1998,
"original
I
At
Because
and/or
ANSWER
under
are
either no
paragraphs,
an
on
time
work
proper
"original
assign
~
as the
the
at
by
-

the
did
all
part
of
oral
DMCA,
and
AND
DMCA
them
times,
authorship"
the
the
of
work
or
just.
Defendant
Defendant
FNC
written
COUNTERCLAIM-
to
and the
of
regulations
FNC.
Furthermore,
to
authorship".
Defendant's
due
was
grant
means.
,
Furthermore,
to
cause
seeks
7
entered
the
blanket
as
Therefore,
a
Defendant's
to
Defendant they
release
interest
By
cause
into
permission
Defendant's
were
#C-O6-6800-SBA
the
with
the
and/or
was
there
interview
signed
seeks
allegations
Court
Fox
r-\
\

in
waiver
was
for
of any and all of the Plaintiff's requestsfor injunctive relief.
good
)

News
the
into
providing
to
the
channel("publication").Defendantallegesthatunder17V.S.C.

never
should
dismiss
Court's
faith
law
to
misuse
set
Channel,
prejudice the requests of the Plaintiff for "Declaratory Relief of Non-
come
any
forth
on
defense
be
of
with
dismissal
October
of
his
into
enjoysthelegalright to protectthis imageundertheprovisionsof theDMCA.

in
201(a), and

by
to their satellite,and then causingthe sameto be transmittedover their cable
image and words, a "co-authorship" relationship for the purposes of publishing
Defendant's image, becausethe Defendant never gave up his rights, nor did he

of
underthe protectionsof an "original work of authorship",defendantretainsand
way of sameproviding the meansfor uplinking the Defendant'simageand words
 ("'"l""" ,..

~
/,..,c
f
,
, .-"

1 13.) The Defendantallegesthat the Plaintiff shouldexpectno protectionaspertainsto the

2 photographin controversyunderthe Fair Use provision, 17 V.S.C. 107(1-4). The

3 Plaintiff cannotreasonablyclaim that his purposein the entry which sparkedthe matterin
4
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
of
6
referring
to
Defendant
as
a
'1erk-off"
(Shown
in
"Proofs",
Item
A),
which
can
be
7 construed as "fighting words" and harassment. Defendant alleges that by virtue of these
8
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
regard.
10
11
14.)
The
Defendant
will
prove
to
the
Court's
satisfaction
that
one's
image,
by
way
of
fact
12 and law, is able to be protected under trademark, and as such the notion of "police it or
13
lose
it"
must
be
enacted.
There
was
no
malice
or
intent
of
bad
faith
upon
the
part
of
the
14 Defendant. The Plaintiff hasnot presentedproofs that satisfiesthe allegationof

15 intentionalmisrepresentation,
whethermaterial or otherwise. The defendanthereby

16 deniesany suchchargeand seeksthe dismissalof any and all suchcharges.

17
15.)
The
DMCA
complaint
in
controversy
read,
in
part,
that
the
Defendant
was
18 authorized to act upon the holder of "an exclusive right". The "exclusive right" in this
19
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
the
21
Plaintiff
has
a
good
faith
belief,
and
Plaintiff
alleges
that
FNC
is
not
authorized
to
22 consentto the releaseof Defendant'simage. Defendantallegesthat he did not perjure

8
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-O6-6800-SBA
J
I
I
,i
 23 22
14 13
16 12
6
5 4
8
9

17
7

21
10
2

20
3

18

19
15
1

11
the Hannity
protecting
Defendant
entry Court, "webmasters" for
section
16.)
I
17
any
Plaintiff's
The
protest.
entitled
and
"Proofs"-Item
use
himself,

and
Defendant
because

I
the 201(a),
alleges
the
V.S.C.
t
other
Colmes,
I
"EFF
requests
use
if
Plaintiff
the
ANSWER
he

than
of
that
specifically
consented
and
has

Court
his
and
broadcast
FNC
~
for
,

should
B)
every

image,
1
0
other
!,

Declaratory
granted
:

Zen
This
AND
is
the provisions of 17 V.S.C.

because
not to
simply
expectation

FNC
and
Monkeys
on
was
his
COUNTERCLAIM-
authorized
an
FNC
seeks
201(a).

image
properties.
posted
adhere
injunction
Relief
FNC
I
itself.
vs.
to
and

being
,
on
never
dismiss
9
Michael
to
to
from
right

November
the
act
No
forbidding
used
gained
the
in
law,
to

other
said
Crook
any
Court.
for
defend

and
#C-06-6800-SBA
claim,
the
the
use
other
1,
defendant
and
find
2006,
consent
Fox
said

Defendant was
~
manner,
as
DMCA".
alternate
News
work,

authorized,
well
CO,,"

at
:

a of
from
time
as
the
Channel's
in
respectfully
especially

(Shown
any
means
harmony
actively Defendant
that
and
and
the
17.) Defendant submits that it would set a dangerous precedent to the detriment of

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

in
all
under

with
the
of
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

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
 n n
1 plaintiff knew the defendanthad not beenserved. This calls into questionthe plaintiff's

2 true intent, and alsorendersany allegationof damageson the plaintiff's part null and

3 void. This can also be perceivedasbeing harassmentand intentional infliction of

4 emotionaldistresson the part of the Plaintiff.

5
6
19.)
On
November
6,
2006,
the
same
day
that
the
plaintiff's
lawyers
initiated
more
7
paperwork,
an
entry
was
posted
on
the
blog
entitled
"Crook's
Internet
Club",
(Shown
in
8
the
section
"Proofs"-Item
C)
wherein
a
photograph
from
defendant's
senior
high
school
9
yearbook
was
posted,
in
an
obvious
attempt
to
intimidate
and
harass
the
defendant.
10 Furthermore, the yearbook photograph should enjoy protection under 17 V.S.C.201(a),

11 as both the Defendantand photographycompanyshouldbe consideredco-authors,by

12
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,
New
14
Jersey),
Class
of
1997.
At
no
time
was
there
any
inference
or
release
which
would
infer
15
that
this
photograph
could
be
used
in
the
manner
in
which
the
Plaintiff
has
used
it,
and
16
Defendant
alleges
that
Plaintiff
at
all
times
had
full
knowledge
that
he
was
engaging
in
a
17 copyright violation in regardsto this photograph.

18

19 20.) The Plaintiff allegesthat the argumentssetforth aboveaspertainsto the alleged

20 conductof the Plaintiff shouldbe construedastamperingwith a witness(by way of

21 defendantbeing a witnessfor the defense,an opposingparty), asthis move causedthe

22
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 ' ,
I ii, ~-~",c..l..
 1
n n
against
the
Plaintiff,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
Court
deeming
these
allegations
as
2 "legally frivolous".

3
4
21.)
On
or
around
November
14,2006,
plaintiff
removed
the
photograph
in
question,
5
despite
the
fact
that
a
screenshot
exists
(Shown
in
the
section
"Proofs"-Item
D)
that
6 clearly shows the photograph exists. This claim is supported in the Source for this blog
7
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
its
9
location,
at:
http:/
/www
.mondoglobo.netlimages/intemetclub.~il2g.
On
December
27,
10 2006, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff posted a blog entry, located at

11 http://www.l0zenmonkeys.com/2006/12/27/crook-harass/ (Shown in "Proofs"-Item F)

12
which
sought
information
on
"DMCA
fraudmeister",
referring
to
the
Defendant.
13
Furthermore,
the
Plaintiff
inaccurately
stated
that
Defendant
owns
the
domain
14 forsakethetroops.org.The Defendantneverat any time ownedthe rights to this domain,

15 nor did he haveany part in registeringand/oroperatingit. Theseare potentially libelous

16 statements,and can be perceivedas "fighting words" and upon this action,the Defendant

17 seeksto dismissthe Plaintiff's complaint,and to awardall relief soughtin the

18 Defendant's counterclaim.

19
20
22.)
By
filing
this
lawsuit,
the
Plaintiff
has
used
the
legal
system
as
a
weapon
in
an
21 intentionally malicious manner, by attempting to intimidate Defendant by publishing the

22 lawsuit on his website prior to its filing, and by continuing to post harassing material after

23 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
'
 n l
1 violationofU.S.C.
§ 1985(2),andin so doing hasirreparablyinjured the defendantby

2 way of causingincreasedtraffic to his website,unwantedattention,exposureto public

3 disdain,and harassingcommentsfrom variousparties,including the plaintiff himself,

4 with the full knowledgeof his counsel. Additional injuries include intentional infliction
5
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
and
9 charges, and seeksthe Court's imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff and

10 counsel for filing a "legally frivolous" action.

11

12 24.) Defendant alleges that it would be an undue infringement on his rights under

13 civil law if the Court were to issue an injunction forbidding any action on his part to
14
police
and/or
protect
his
rights
in
regards
to
the
DMCA.
It
would
further
set
a
15 dangerousprecedentto the immediatedetrimentof copyright holders,in unduefavor

16 of webmastersand bloggerswho seekto ignore and intentionally abusethe law in

17 orderto publish any contentthey wish, regardlessof authorshipand copyright issues.

18 Therefore,Defendantseeksto causethe Court to dismissany and all requestsupon

19 the part of the Plaintiff for any form of injunctive relief asrequestedin the initial

20 complaint.

21

22 25.) The Defendantrepeatshis requestthat any and all motions and requestson

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

12
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-O6-6800-SBA
111
,
 ~
(')
1 Attorney's fees, costs, disbursements, disgorgement, restitution, and/or any other
2
form
of
relief
be
dismissed
by
the
Court
with
prejudice.
3
4
On
the
grounds
and
allegations
set
forth
in
the
preceding
Answer
to
a
5 Complaint, the Defendant seeks to have this complaint dismissed. Independent of

6 the status of the complaint, the Defendant hereby submits the following

7 counterclaim of damages incurred as a direct result of this matter:

8
9
COUNTERCLAIM
10
11
1.)
On
November
1,2006,
the
plaintiff's
lawyers,
the
Electronic
Frontier
12 Foundation, posted copies of the initial complaint on their website before it
13
was
properly
served
upon
the
defendant.
The
defendant
also
announced
it
on
14 his blog, located at www.l Ozenmonkeys.com, (Shown in "Proofs"-Section
15
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
intent
of
17
malice
and
harassment.
18
2.)
The
Defendant
submits
that
the
Plaintiff
has
waived
any
claim
of
true
19 damages. Essentially, this case is about publicity for his blog and for the
20
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
law-abiding
23 citizens such as the Defendant.

13
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-O6-6800-SBA
I
I
J..I
,
 ~
n
1 3.

)
The
defendant
seeks
damages
to
reimburse
him
for
actual
time,
materials,
and
2 costs related to defending this matter. Furthermore, Plaintiff's actions have
3
caused
a
disruption
in
Defendant's
business
operations,
which
consist
mainly
4
of
income
derived
from
advertising
revenue.
Plaintiff's
actions
have
led
to
an
5
outcry
to
Defendant's
advertisers,
who
advertise
by
way
of
banner
and/or
6
"pay
per
click"
ads
on
Defendant's
various
web
sites.
Defendant
alleges
that
7 the Plaintiff's malicious actions caused the loss of most advertising revenue
8
sources.
At
the
time
of
this
filing,
this
amount
of
actual
losses,
inclusive
of
9 estimatedloss of advertisingrevenue,aswell as actualtime, costs,and

10 materialspertainingto the defenseof Plaintiff's frivolous action, is estimated

11 at $4,150.00,which includesreasonablecompensation.Defendantreserves

12 the right to amendthis amountasneeded.

13

14 4.) Defendantfurther seekspunitive damages,asthe Plaintiff's actionshave

15 causeda hateful, and aggressivebacklashby supportersof the EFF and the

16
Plaintiff.
It
is
the
Defendant's
allegation
that
this
was
the
desired
result
on
the
17 part of the Plaintiff and his lawyers, which is evident in the announcing of this

18 lawsuit, with complete paperwork posted, prior to the defendant being

19
properly
notified
and/or
served.
The
defendant
alleges
this
was
done
in
an
20 intentional effort to harass,annoy,and unduly intimidate the Defendant.

21

22 5.) The backlashhascausedthe defendantunduestressand defendantconsiders

23 this to be Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the part of the

14
#C-06-6800-SBA
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
I !I~_",. , I,.
 ~
~
\. ) \)

1 plaintiff, asthe plaintiff postedanotherentry on his blog on November6,

2 2006, entitled "Crook's InternetClub", (attachedunder"Proofs") wherehe

3 continuedto maliciously violate the defendant'srights by postingyearbook

4
photographs
from
defendant's
senior
year
of
high
school
without
his
consent.
5 6.) This action as hascausedthe defendanta considerableamountof undue

6 stress,and hasalso causedDefendantto be annoyedand feel unduly harassed

7 by the Plaintiff's conduct. Defendantallegesthat the Plaintiff's actionshave

8 causedirreparableand intentionaldamage,both to his reputationand business

9 operations. Defendantseeksdamagesto aid in the recoveryfrom said

10 injuries.

11
12
7.)
To
aid
in
this
recovery,
Defendant
seeks
punitive
damages
in
the
amount
of
13 $22,000,000.00,or anotheramountdeemedfair andjust by a jury and/orthe

14 Court. Defendantreservesthe right to amendthis amountasneeded.

15

16 8.) Defendantseeksthe Court'sdismissalthe plaintiffs complaintwith prejudice.

17

18 9.) Defendantpraysfor any and all other damagesdeemedjust by the Court.

19

20
21
DATED:
f
-l{
07
22
23
By:
15
ANSWER
AND
COUNTERCLAIM-
#C-06-6800-SBA
"' Ii. ,..l"~__cc."'"
 17
16 15
13
12 11 10
9
8 5
4 2
3
1
14
7
6

,
II
X.../
Signed Before
Notary
I
~
ANSWER
named,
and me
Public
on
jJl£1'!
sworn:
~
\,"

this
Michael
J

AND
S.
/
Crook,
COUNTERCLAIM-
~
Commission
f---
who
Notary
day
submitted
16
,
Michael
-
of
Public
Qualified
No.
Expires
January
,~
to
State
S.
me
#C-O6-6800-SBA
Crook,
February
04ME5072663
2007,
of proper
in Onondaga
New
appearing
appeared
~
-U--
3,
Malcolm M. Merrill
identification.
York
'
:I

20Jol!:.
County

i
the
Pro-Se
above
 10
22 13
14
19
9
20
11

23
5

17
4
2

15
1

21
12
3

16
6
7

18
8
Baldwinsville,
JEFFERY
I
Michael

Plaintiff
in
V
s.
this
!
Defendant
DIEHL.
MICHAEL
ill
CROOK,
methods:
(315) 350-3412
matter
NY
mike.crook@mcipdns.com
13027
was
AFFIDAVIT
(1
FOR
8417 Oswego Rd. #179
S. Crook, Pro-Se

served
THE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
upon
NORTHERN
OF
Case
the
SERVICE-
AFFIDAVIT
STATES
UNITED
attorneys
Number:
,
1
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
#C-06-6800-SBA
for
C-06-8600-SBA
OF
the
SERVICE
Plaintiff
OF
COURT
~
CALIFORNIA
by
i
the
following
1.) Defendant hereby alleges, swears, and affirms that the Answer and Counterclaim
 .--
~
\
II;,
~
J
1

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

4 a.) DHL Next-Day

3:00pm
delivery:
5
Corynne
McSherry,
Lead
Attorney
6 Electronic Frontier Foundation

7 454 Shotwell Street

8
San
Francisco,
CA
94110
9 Waybill #: 56768378741

10 And

11
12 JasonSchultz,LeadAttorney

13 ElectronicFrontierFoundation

14 454ShotwellStreet
15
San
Francisco,
CA
94110
16 Waybill #: 56768978844
17
DATED:
By:
18 1J-,~t~- --

19 MichaelS. Crook,appearing
Pro-Se
20
Before
me
on
this
~--
day
of
January
2007,
appeared
the
above
1>
21
named,
Michael
S.
Crook,
who
submitted
to
me
proper
identification.
22 Signed and sworn:
::
x~~
~jl/t
'If
,(1(
..
25
Malcolm
M.
Merrill
Notary
Public
State
of
New
York
26 No. 04ME5072663
27 Q.ual.jfied in Onondaga County
Commission Expires February 3, 20...&-
2
AFFIDAVIT
OF
SERVICE-
#C-06-6800-SBA
j
II
,
 ~
~
PROOFS

ITEM:

A
,
I
"
,
I!"
I
 ultimately
think emails, Crook Michael
As
prostitutes," claims day and The answers, one article numbers But and He Clearly slight
flirtatious see He
So
who
apparently also
little
what
his
received he
eyes,
last
extra
September
your
d!ggs
spin
digg it
I Lilt;'--VIIIP411)

from
is
he's
also
769
fake
and
following
visited
is
email
Croo~
as
the
and
"along
kind
and
cities
weather
Michael
reveals
wife
on
we
made
enjoying
sometimes
a
ad
18th,
he
asshole
almost
often
of
asking
conned
couple B his
By Lou Cabron

like
the
got
writes.
and
were
cup
is
with
people
2006
hero's
the
the
a
ambushing
guy
II
claiming
Crook?
15
to
lot
co-workers'
breasts.")
no
wannabe,
"exposing
years
apparently
your additional
why
Fortuny
the
more
was But
encourage
even about
In the Company

attention.
would
methods,
(possibly
Kansas City ,and Anchorage
he
pics,
ago,
he's
His
"Casual
tapped
Encounter"
responses.
to
instant
was the
-
men
script,
And
"Howard."
have
respond
web
'.

the where
will
also
effort
necessary
reaction
man
r--:,

(Just
trolling
but
these
to
with
perverts" added
married)
messaging
site
deduced
be
published
Crook
teach
he
behind
of
he
two
(Possibly
posted
on listings
guys,

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

describes
replying also
will
of Jerkoffs

is
for
the
Not
because
a
teenaged
comments
in pretended
site
man
sex
the
and
girls
it.
possesses
yet

responses
be
a
for
only
them.
the
for
In
picture
like
when ads
identities
because
"pathetic
another

to
into
all
him
on
names this
five
his
is
his
girls
,
on
Craigslist,
to
He
the
his
and
to
sending
as
original
they
other
place and hypocritical for the behavior he's engaged in. case,
with
a
see
respondents
to Craig's
also
be
internet
a
sad

pathological
imagination
of no
in
craigslist-perverts.org - a domain he created Wednesday.
one
his
of
former men"
on
find
a
his their
he's
his
one
cities
did
his
member

19-year-old
site.
post craigslist-perverts.org.")
a
prank
which
ward.)
List.
wife
out?"
photo
victims.
actually
responding
online
not
and
wives,
Mormon,
-
in
to
Like
only
and
generated
cheating
of

his
lacking,
Las
moralism
he
is
of
In
extract
research,
and
the

known ~
asks. his
the
"Check
forum.)
readY
1999 female
pathetic,
past
Vegas,
"~

disillusioned
to
in
erection
guy
(~_t,

even
capable
on
incidents,
(Adding
he
the
one
less
his
for
that
student
whose
looking
out
He his Dayton,
was
ads.
but
web
case
carrying more-embarrassing
And naturally, when men responded, Michael published their pictures and emails on

than
seems
brags
wife.
this
-
too
only
a
""p.11.. .. ... 'V£"""'V"A")"."V"U ~VVVI

"I
that
site
name
Googled
pathetic
then
50 at the
name of a respondent, then claimed it appearedon other dating sites "including fag sites."
magazine
up
just
after
South
underweight
"What
that
Syracuse
entirely
of
-Ed) responses
their
ads
story
their
sent
wanted
putting
he
a
the
community,"

from
dispute Jersey,
copycat.
used..."
the
phone
do
him
next
If Jason Fortuny is similar to the "Chad" character from Neil LaBute's In the Company of Men, then

out
He
you
university with B-cup breasts, looking to hang out "and maybe enjoy a nice, safe sexual encounter." ("I

to a
about how religious programming was assigned spots on a local cable access show. (And the fact that a
don't care if you're married, single, engaged, whatever. Life is fun. Sex is natural. Friendship is great.")

to
of
publishing variations on his original ad. ("I'm 19, 5'4, 108 lbs, brown hair
V/I 'VI "'-U"'-"V"'P"") -v, -J'"~V"..,
""~Ll.~
join
"He's remains But the
community. Perhaps obscure discussing explain Recently although troops,"
In southern Michael later and deer-in-headlights don't "scumbags" He Pacific
~
Crook!"
lyrics?
weasled
words
you're
for
the
reported
need
criminal
a
A
all
why
dick.
amlY,
Dutch
to
Fortunyand
a
which
had
New
i he
he's venue
they drool.
garage
"Coming
his
be illegal
their
a
his
was
I
and
racism
~
disgrace...
(He's
justice
can he
seen
registered
online
Jersey,
but
Eurodance
called
way
hooker
ilk
apparently
"pukes,"
was
band
immigrants.")
foresee
even
anaffiliation
performance
I
whether
in
a
I
is
soon!"
right
Crook
activity,
beaten
dick!)
""
attention
and
degree.
this
actually
called
of
after
You
two
onto
a
Las asking our
group.
country!"
But
day
he
trying
take
Fuck
to
bulking
more
are
Permament
Michael
economy.")
\4
II lilt: \.-UIlIV(1JIYUI Jt:1I\.UII:' - I U L.t:11lVIUIlI\.CY:'

Vegas,
can
TV
a
See also: Crook's Internet Club
death
to
with (~
!
at
when
drew
Both
good
solace
heartless,
"What
He
him!
his
least
to
domains
make in
a
This
writes auction
up
by
the
belief
a
this
according
sites,
group thing...
remains
(Fuck
standard-issue
some
Vit:ULIlICj

in
was
angry
idiots
a
spring
Ascent
led
community
each
career
you
though
that
thatsoldiers
-
to
told
them
of
to
him!)
")
servicemen
risk
racismworks.com
"preserve
are
plagued
other,
his of
an
he
to
and
uploaded
he
out
off
2005
his
appearance
soulless,
manages their
appear
anger
Asshole.
was
crimmigrants.org
,
of
from
of
to
beatdown
web
pissing
by
are
for
life
cash
nihilistic medically
the
appears
-
to
obscurity.
a
site,
within
over-compensated.
creating
you
for
a
song
rights be
(Asshole!)
though
in
sports-clothing
on
people
a
and
little
on
are
from
("Coming
country...?
sincere. Fox
about
pranksters
the
unfit
of
their
mean
ran
a
Crook created related domains like opposethetroops, disownthetroops,

that
more
He
white
familiarity Sean web
News
("dedicated
off.
a
him
Fuck
for
notoriety.
grew
~
was
300-member
and
One
Technorati Tags: Craig's List, Fortuny, sex-baiting, sexbaiting, craigslist,~,
accident- including what he purportsareher phonenumbersand address.

than site
Hannity.
soon,
service.
men
to
where
hold
Let
store
hi-i-m.
obviously
you
up
blogger
called
It
their
their
and
of also
'em
composed an essay arguing that members of the military are overpaid. ("Financially

in
a
its
to
are
and
Crook's
website
their
small-town
Seven
MySpace
("You're
taglines,
first
exposing
Fuck women."
"Forsake
die
called
cruel
fan
claimed
is
~.
malicious
in
convention, "pursuing"
club
Michael
years
which
combat
soldiers
followed
ignorant
")
page.
and
Recently
the
michael crook
earlier
for
Arizona,
Instead
His later
and citizensagainstthetroops

will
an
Michael also created a web page criticizing a 17-year-old drunk driver who killed her friend in a car

-
Its
-
speaking, it's the

site
a
we
he
and
Ironically, just four weeksbeforehis Craig's List prank, he'd senta spateof letterscomplainingabout

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

;
 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

EFF
n ()
and
10
Zen
Monkeys
vs.
Michael
Crook
and
DMCA
By Jeff Diehl
November
J
st.,
2006
769
I;)'.
digg
it
Vote Reddit StOry 1
Social
griefing
a
la
Jason
Fortuny
and
Micbael
Crook
may
have
finally
been
taken
too
far.
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
- his
services
are
more
expensive,
but
Iknew
Scott
the
site
to
local
San
Francisco
ISP
Laughing
Squid,
owned
by
myoid
pal,
Scott
Beale
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."
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
necessary
is
because
of
the draconian copyright "protections" built into the DMCA - ones which sacrifice fair use among other things.) But since the take-down
notice
doesn't
require
a
court
order,
or
any
type
of
judicial
scrutiny,
it
means
that
shady
individuals
or
organizations
can
easily
use
the
law
to
stifle
free
speech.
"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
to
have
a
particularly
malicious
interpretation
of
the
DMCA.
He
has
declared
on
his
blog
his
own
campaign
to
serve
take-down
notices
on
sites
he
doesn't
like,
regardless
of
whether
he
owns
the
copyright
on
the
material
in
question.
From
his
blog:
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
that.
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
,
I 411UI V LCII IVIVII"'CY:' v:.. tVII"114"1'-'I VV,,"(UIU UIVI,-,r\ - I V L"II IVIV... 1"'p.11 I VLNIUIIVII""'Y:'."VIIIJ ,,"VVVII II V II '-11-'" Vv"'-WII"a-laW:'UILI
f"" 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
and
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 of Jerkoffs
The Secret Life of Jason Fortuny
Jason Fortuny Speaks
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 to "EFF
and
10
Zen
Monkeys
VS.
Michael
Crook
and
DMCA"
1. Marty Says:
November 1st. 2006 at 6: 14 pm

I love how he calls the EFF hippies in his pressrelease.If a hippy is someonethat 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
.
 n

~
-
\..J
PROOFS
ITEM:

C
","l.~~c II ,
 n
~
'- "--/)

~
10a8-1
..
Ct"'."""""
c.,..
.101..
~-,.
"WO.?Iwl.1ie.t..
rIoofo.
~&:u
[k t'" "'~ '.,.cr,"""'" 1"" "'"

,,:
~
.""!,,-""""""".,,.c~,':OO'jl'~'.~;""~'-"Sr,,~j'"
(~.
"'-
"'"'.
",",jA"
,jA'cr
,
,.,.."
OTT
,.
",...
co,
.
"""
m
,jA .AI ,jA-~t.. '-""' 1 G~-'-co. .

--~
Cl-ook.s Internet Club ~~'L"1~~!",,--,--,,
"'~""-',;"'"
...~ '.""]do.."
""~""""k
~
Internet u
b .Am"'_'xtr.~~"

CI
-NY,..,.."
~-
d ,"

.w"""..~J
-"-~~
"HusoIY=o.rt_'
~7,
-R~.
-,~ -.. ,- .w"-wr.,,.. "d 'M~~.ib"
.,.-~_.- -"."'""9
==..",;,'..."-: ',_.cl..."",oatb...
' "-~ ~"","".n"'"
--,.--
.-
-l
._,-~,
h.'.""- . -
-,-,,--
-~~~
:::-':'"'-':"=
= ",,__h,
--
---~-
'-.. =,~;~
~-£~~~.
55
~.,
...",,"bo.~~.u,
TM 1oalo4 fipuw,Miob..JC"""l:.who.."",bo
~.f"r""""j..,.11v..~;r~"';;n~.rl'h ,~..;.f_A,mM~.-

L~_L-
.'8"§~~..iJ~- ~~ ~--~7=.;.._!Ii ~
Q
:~F"~'-"'"
0 0 :: ~ Q j+ ,cO;SO,
AtcX .. w.. ~
,i.\2i--_o.a..- r8Qaok.._cu
1~
~.
.o:~~
c:c'-_c:~~~-~:.c

~1:!1:J
TUO5doy
-- ~..s
--- :t:J~ ~,- ';'ili'_1I=-~'1
.. - . 'I/I~

\ r II I , I.
,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
it
Vote Reddit Story 2

The Internet's most hated figure, Michael Crook, who is on the verge of being legally humiliated in court thanks to griefer dumbfuckery
using nefarious 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
Video
. 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 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,
It's
becoming
a
giant
parable
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.)

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
contest,
photoshopping
Crook's
picture
into
new
satirical
settings,
showing
him
assassinating
President
Lincoln,
tormenting
William
Shatner,
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

Crook joined the online conversation, and Friday even created a new domain - FuckEFF .org. Lambasting "the almighty Electronic Freedom
II
,
rOOKs Irnernel \.-IUD- IV Len lVlunKeys~a weuzlIlt:) Illlp.IIWWW.lVZt:lUllVIIl\.t:y:;.~VllI/LVVV/ll/VV/l.;lVVl\.-llllt:11lt:l-~IUU-IVUIIUUI!I

n
~
Frontier," he decriesthe group's lawsuit as malicious prosecution-then 15 words later writes "I will go broke ensuring[Jeff Diehl] incurs
eternalfinancial misery for going after me."
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 associatesthat the group is "renegadeswho
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
on
attention-seeking
becomes
more
clear.
"It's
unfortunate
that
their
true
movitation
is
intimidation,
publicity,
and
pity-whoring"
he
writes-
above four Google AdSense ads.

To draw more traffic from searchengines,Crook augmentedhis anti-EFF pagewith over a dozendifferent hidden keywordsin its HTML
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
recommendingattorneys.("'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 responsesto the original article. "Been there, donethat," wrote a director from Black Box Voting, adding he "beat
Diebold Election SystemsInc. when they were going nuts trying to DMCA-slam websites."

Another commenterchallengedCrook's argumentthat his presencein the photo grantshim a copyright, saying it raisesan interesting
question"about the photoshe publishedof men who had answeredhis CraigsList ad. (Who would presumablythen enjoy the same
copyrights.)"

A LEARNING OPPORTUNITY
!:!P.
~ ~ Qf conversations,all about the sametopic: a flaw in online copyright
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' responsefrom 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 contestedmaterial 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,or malice," they arguethat Crook holds no claim to the image's copyright, and
points out the existence of a well-known exemption for the "fair use" of copyrighted materials.

"In the end," they add, "it appearsthat 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 becausehe appearsin it. Significantly, in the earlier notice which first caught the EFF's attention,Crook had written: "I swear,under
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.

"It's as though millions of photojournalistssuddenlybeganlaughing hysterically at once..."

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
video
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
Jerkoft"s
EFF vs. Crook

478
01"1'.)"
digg
it
Vote Reddit StOry 1

Show some love and subscribe:

~I~I~
1
Im--o..-
Im
I-"~'- 1-'3~""-,

Add to Digg ~ Add to Reddit

1.~~..~,'il~.~tM
« 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
Club"
I.
Jake
Says:
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