EFF in the News
Separately, Righthaven objected to the participation in the case of professor Jason Schultz, co-director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California-Berkeley.
Schultz filed a friend of the court brief listing reasons the suit could be dismissed on fair use grounds and also arguing the Review-Journal had encouraged the online posting by the Oregon center by suggesting that readers share its news online.
Righthaven complained that Schultz made "numerous, unsupported factual assertions" in his brief.
The company said that while Schultz is participating "apparently on the basis that he is a citizen concerned about the application of the Copyright Act," he's really biased against Righthaven since he's a former senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) of San Francisco and the EFF assisted in his participation in the Center for Intercultural Organizing case.
"Schultz is far from a 'friend of the court.' Rather, he is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing who seeks to mislead this court's fair use analysis for the benefit of EFF's defense of other cases now pending and future cases yet to be filed," Righthaven complained.
The EFF is connecting Righthaven defendants with volunteer attorneys, is representing two Righthaven defendants as a public service and has filed counterclaims charging the Righthaven litigation campaign is an abuse of the court system and the Copyright Act since, the EFF asserts, the lawsuits are frivolous and are filed without warning as part of a settlement shakedown scheme.
Sometimes, the most disturbing part of a discussion is that you need to have it at all. Consider the issue of e-readers, for example. For each of the past two years, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a guide to e-book readers and the current one, posted in December, can be found at http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/2010-e-book-buyers-guide-e-book-privacy. As the URL telegraphs, this guide isn’t your usual review of whether the Kindle has a sharper image than the Nook or why the iPad is a better bargain than the Sony Reader. Instead, this evaluation is focused solely on the privacy policies associated with each.
Why would someone pay that much for a set of video games? Well, it was for charity. Part of the proceeds went toward Child's Play. The money also went to the developers, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the company who organized the promotion. Buyers were actually able to determine how much of their purchase money would go to each party.
"It's like being forced to walk around with a bar code that a scanner can pick up — except that it's your car," said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which advocates for consumer and privacy rights. "This is one of those privacy places where the rubber really meets the road."
The second incarnation of the Humble Indie Bundle is now over and, thanks in part to the organizers extending the deadline by five days, the latest "pay what you want" indie game bundle brought in $1,815,934.53 in revenues for the five indie games (Braid, Machinarium, Osmos, Cortex Command and Revenge of the Titans) plus two charities (Electronic Frontier Foundation and Child's Play). The six games from the first Humble Indie Bundle were added later in the week if people donated more than the average per-person amount.
The service is called Chilling Effects, “A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.”
Chilling Effects “gathers and analyzes legal notices alleging online copyright infringement. More than 12,000 notices are available for public review, education and study, and the data there has been the basis for a number of scholarly papers about copyright law and the Internet,” according to EFF, which this week filed a friend of the court brief with the Ninth Circuit that was co-written by the other founders and participants in the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
Hey, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's the real deal!
I've been a member for almost twenty years.
Check out EFF: the year in 8bit:
The system has indeed worked—for the two attorneys wiretapped in this case as part of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" that the government has admitted to. But, as EFF has alleged in its cases based on widespread news reports and whistleblower evidence, the full scope of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping—cryptically referred to as "Other Intelligence Activities" in the Inspectors General report on the broader President's Surveillance Program—implicates the privacy rights of millions of Americans, rights that EFF is still seeking to vindicate in its lawsuits on behalf of AT&T customers. Both the Jewel and Hepting cases are currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and awaiting the scheduling of oral argument; depending on whether the government appeals yesterday's decision, the Al-Haramain case may soon be joining them.
The first example of a site being suspended comes from a blog post by the EFF’s Marcia Hofmann. The story starts with a letter sent from SiteGround to an unnamed customer, which informs them that SoftLayer has flagged the domain for AUP/ToS violations. When pressed, SiteGround told the customer that SoftLayer flagged the domain because it was hosting a mirror for WikiLeaks content.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also become involved, telling the appeals court in a filing this week that “Chilling Effects serves the purposes of the DMCA by facilitating research and education about online copyright policy, and by making possible an evaluation of the extent to which Congress’ goals for the DMCA are being met in practice.”