EFF in the News
Cindy Cohn, the San Francisco-based legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation who spoke at the court hearing in opposition to the book plan, said the group has repeatedly urged Google to incorporate many of the same privacy standards that public libraries have, such as never turning over library records to police without a warrant.
Google wanted to make such decisions on a case by case basis.
"It's tremendously important" for Google to adopt the library standards, Cohn said. "The ability to be able to engage in intellectual inquiry without somebody being tracked — it's an important piece of free expression."
Rebecca Jeschke of the Electronic Frontier Foundation pointed out to us...truth can rip through cyberspace as quickly as lies.
"Before the ink is dry on net neutrality regulations, we already see corporate lobbyists and 'public decency' advocates pushing for loopholes," said EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick. "A loophole like this could swallow network neutrality, with ISPs claiming copyright enforcement as a pretext for all sorts of discriminatory behaviour."
Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for tech companies and Internet users, defended Real's pursuit of the case. He said Real could have provided real benefit to consumers, if not with RealDVD, then eventually with a DVD player that would have incorporated some of the software's copying abilities. Real was working on a player, codenamed Facet, which would have created copies of DVDs and stored more than 70 films on its hard drive.
"(Real's testimony) made it clear that Real was out to deliver to consumers a product that people wanted to see," von Lohmann said. "I think the message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they've long done with CDs, you'll get sued out of the business. I think that's bad news for consumers. What that means is that if you want to create a digital back-up of your movies, you have to pay for that a second time on iTunes."
The ruling highlights tensions between the U.S. and Europe when it comes to privacy standards, said Eddan Katz, international affairs director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And it could to lead to the U.S. being unable to let similar legislation pass, he said, given that "this was an experiment that was tried and as a matter of constitutional law rejected."
Performance issues aside, Apple has registered its formal opposition to jailbreaking under the cloak of copyright, claiming the act is illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This claim has been disputed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and open source Web browser developer Mozilla, which has called Apple’s restrictions both harmful to innovation and an improper application of DMCA rules. Apple has thus far taken no legal action against users who jailbreak their phones, nor against any jailbreak-enablers, including the iPhone Dev Team, which has managed to jailbreak every iPhone OS update to date.
Meanwhile, the EFF and Mozilla have asked the U.S. Copyright Office for an exemption specifically permitting installation of legal apps on iPhones. The Office listened to arguments on both sides in a May 2009 hearing, but has missed its own October projection for a decision and has yet to issue its opinion.
Corynne McSherry, an EFF lawyer representing Lenz, called the ruling a victory.
"I think what's important here is that someone who's had their speech chilled can move forward and bring a lawsuit under 512(f)," said McSherry.
Lenz then teamed with online free-speech advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation to get a judge to declare that her video was a "fair use" of the song. She then sought damages against Universal, the world's biggest record company, for sending a meritless takedown request.
"This isn't about who won the Olympic gold yesterday; this is for sharing what happened to me as well," said Michael Barclay, a California patent attorney and a fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"That is pretty broad. I would not be surprised if someone had been doing just what is in this patent before 2006."
The National Coalition Against Censorship and the Electronic Frontier Foundation both chimed in this week in support of Greenfield.
"If a user community video is flagged as inappropriate, YouTube should at least have an appeals process to allow an artist to explain the artistic merit," EFF attorney Kurt Opsahl wrote on the organization's blog. "While we understand YouTube's desire to keep pornography off its servers, it must also understand that not all nude art is pornographic."