EFF in the News
The EFF's Fred von Lohmann believes the Viacom-YouTube judge may very well be influenced by the decision. "[T]his ruling could prove to be influential on the judge in the YouTube case, since Veoh's policies are very similar to YouTube's," von Lohmann told Ars. "The ruling further cements a number of earlier rulings that have insisted that the burden of policing user-generated content for copyright infringements falls to the copyright owner, not to the video hosting provider."
YouTube and Google could be the big winner in all of this, said Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Viacom accused YouTube of infringing its copyright in a lawsuit filed in March 2007.
"Veoh's policies are very similar to YouTube's," von Lohmann said. "The judge gave Veoh a clean bill of health. I think the court in New York (where the Viacom-YouTube case is being heard) is going to take this ruling very seriously. The facts are very, very close."
Online anonymity is "a speed bump that's relatively easy to clear for people with legitimate causes of action," said Matt Zimmerman, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“This is an important point that people haven’t grasped,” said Peter Eckersley of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “If you have any hacker who is competent and spends the time and targets you, he’s going to get you.”
"The vast majority of tweets are likely to be too short and lacking in creativity to qualify for copyright," said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an e-mail. "So they are not 'owned' by anyone, much like your idle chatter while walking down the street isn't 'owned' by anyone."
However, if schools really are interested in educating kids about copyright, why not use a non-industry curriculum, like the one put together by the EFF, called Teaching Copyright.
The brief says the policy "fails to safeguard reader privacy."
Corynne McSherry, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, chose the same word to describe the WIPO domain name dispute process: "preposterous." But she's less convinced that Beck's lawyers have a case to make regarding defamation, even when it comes to the website's name. "I'm not sure of any case where someone has claimed that a domain name was defamatory," she tells Ars. And while domain names do pop up alone in search engines and other places, the public generally thinks of a site's name in connection with the full content of the site, not as some standalone morsel of content.
On Tuesday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley and other privacy groups filed a court brief that said the settlement "fails to safeguard reader privacy."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BU6519KAPM.DTL&type=tech#ixzz0Qkf1ZkSO
Privacy concerns are at the heart of a new objection to the Google Books settlement filed by the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, UC Berkeley’s Samuelson Clinic and private attorney David Pankin. With EFF’s Cindy Cohen taking the lead, the group objects to the settlement because of the chilling effect on reading, research and writing Google’s control over user data could have.