EFF in the News
An ex-WikiLeaks volunteer has hired American lawyers to oppose the U.S. government's efforts to obtain the contents of her Twitter account, CNET has learned.
Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a member of the Icelandic parliament who helped with WikiLeaks' release of a classified U.S. military video, is being represented by the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"We're looking at options and various things we can do to help our client," EFF legal director Cindy Cohn said yesterday. "She's disturbed that her information is being sought."
When Twitter revealed to some Wikileaks-related users that the Department of Justice had issued a subpoena asking for their Twitter records, it suggested they might seek legal counsel with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. That is exactly what at least one of them has done.
The EFF has reportedly stepped up to represent some clients the firm has gone after, while most are just settling with Righthaven, which has been seeking a maximum penalty of $150,000 plus seizure of the domain name in every case, according to the report.
Some Apps May Leak Your Data
The U.S. Justice Department has served Twitter with a subpoena seeking information on an Icelandic lawmaker who has worked with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, the lawmaker told Threat Level on Friday.
“I got the letter from Twitter a couple of hours ago, saying I got 10 days to stop it,” wrote Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland’s parliament, in an e-mail. “Looking for legal ways to do it. Will be talking to lawyers from EFF tonight.”
EFF refers to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil liberties group in the United States.
The EFF also asserts that bad patents threaten free expression by allowing the patent holder to threaten anyone using the technology for any purpose, whether or not the use causes any harm to the patent holder, is used for non-commercial purposes, or the user had any idea they were even using an infringing technology.
The latest patent infringement claim on the EFF's radar is made by a company called Flightprep against a company called RunwayFinder. The EFF believes the copyright is one that should never have been granted. In their words:
In that case, you have objected to the friend of the court brief filed by Jason Schultz. In that brief, Schultz argued that the case should be dismissed under fair use, and that the Review-Journal encourages readers to share their stories. Why do you object to this brief, other than the arguments outlined in it?
We have given a detailed, well reasoned response to this. I don't have time to go over it again.
How is it different for EFF to be involved or inserting their involvement in these cases, than for Righthaven — who did not own the copyrights at the time of the infringements — to raise them in the first place?
There are remarkable differences between the two. You're talking about the difference between someone taking ownership and someone being in the position of legal counsel. Then you're talking about the difference of being hired as a legal counsel and then coming in as an amicus. Then you're talking about the difference between coordinating legal counsel and being legal counsel. [If discussed in detail], it would be a long and potentially out of context answer that I would give you.
But according to opponents of Righthaven, like the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this penalty is an overreach of the law. A nonprofit legal services group aimed at promoting civil liberties online, the EFF is primarily concerned with the rights of bloggers and specifically interested in the fair use of intellectual property on the Internet. They are currently representing clients in two unsettled Righthaven cases, and are contributing to or actively organizing pro bono representation in several others. "In essence these cases are trying to extract settlements regardless of whether somebody has a meritorious defense," says Kurt Opsahl, EFF's senior staff attorney.
Back in April 2008 I wrote about the curious case of UMG vs. Augusto, in which the music Goliath was suing an eBay David for auctioning promotional music CDs he bought up on the cheap from disc jockeys who received them unsolicited and free from UMG.
UMG argued that such resales are prohibited solely because UMG slapped labels on the CDs reading "promotional use only, not for sale."
The eBay guy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that's nonsense because UMG had no right to restrict anyone's "first sale" rights on CDs that it had scattered to the wind, so to speak.
Now an appeals court has told UMG the same thing.
This type of mass copyright infringement litigation is being opposed by the digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco, which is also fighting Righthaven over its newspaper lawsuits.
In similar porn downloading cases involving Denton, Texas, attorney Evan Stone, who filed the suit for Serious Bidness, the EFF has said many defendants may settle the lawsuits because they don't want to be publicly identified -- even if they have meritorious defenses.
Defendants are also vulnerable to these "cookie-cutter" litigation tactics because they may have to defend themselves in courts thousands of miles from home, they are afraid of getting hit with steep financial damages and they can't afford attorneys fees, the EFF said in a Dec. 21 report on Righthaven and other "copyright trolls."