EFF in the News
Corynne McSherry, legal director of the EFF, said it will still be possible for copyright owners to use some automated tools to go after online pirates. For example, they can send out notices automatically for files that duplicate ones already taken down, or whose audio and video substantially match their works.
"Plenty of rights owners are already doing this kind of thing," McSherry said. What they can't do, she added, is automate the process in a way that prevents them from identifying fair uses, which Universal's approach did.
A “plaintiff may seek recovery of nominal damages for an injury incurred as a result of a ... misrepresentation,” wrote judge Richard C Tallman, in a decision that authorizes the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to move forward with a 2007 lawsuit against Universal music on behalf of YouTube user Stephanie Lenz. “Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.”
Nadia Kayyali, responsable des questions de surveillance à l'Electronic Frontier Foundation, une organisation à but non lucratif qui défend les libertés civiles, remarque que la nouvelle loi tranche avec le discours habituel des corps policiers au sujet des drones.
«Les policiers disent vouloir des drones pour aider les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage, ou en cas de déversement toxique, dit-elle en entrevue. Or, on voit ici qu'ils font du lobbying pour des activités qui n'ont rien à voir avec cet usage.»
The Electronic Frontier Foundation represented Lenz and said Monday's ruling has ramifications beyond her case.
"Today's ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech," EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said in a statement.
EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry said in a statement:
“Today’s ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech. … The decision made by the appeals court today has ramifications far beyond Ms. Lenz’s rights to share her video with family and friends. We will all watch a lot of online video and analysis of presidential candidates in the months to come, and this ruling will help make sure that information remains uncensored.”
The suit, known as the “dancing baby” case, has become famous for its focus on the kind of Internet activity that millions of ordinary people engage in, posting candid videos of family and friends that may only incidentally include copyrighted media like songs. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that represented Ms. Lenz in her lawsuit against Universal, called the judges’ decision a victory for Internet users.
“Today’s ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech,” Corynne McSherry, the foundation’s legal director, said in a statement.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said copyright holders can't demand videos and other content that uses their material be taken down without determining whether they constitute "fair use." It's the first circuit court to issue such a ruling, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the civil liberties group that represented Lenz in her lawsuit.
"(The) ruling sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech," said Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents Lenz.
In an opinion (PDF) published this morning, the three-judge panel found that Universal Music Group's view of fair use is flawed. The record label must face a trial over whether it wrongfully sent a copyright takedown notice over a 2007 YouTube video of a toddler dancing to a Prince song. That toddler's mother, Stephanie Lenz, acquired pro bono counsel from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF in turn sued Universal in 2007, saying that its takedown practices violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Corynne McSherry, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation representing Lenz, said the decision "sends a strong message that copyright law does not authorize thoughtless censorship of lawful speech."