Wysiging soos op 19:54, 20 Junie 2006 wysig RAM (besprekings \| bydraes) 8 945 edits →‎Geskiedenis, mylpale en sake ← Ouer wysiging		Wysiging soos op 05:37, 21 Junie 2006 wysig maak ongedaan RAM (besprekings \| bydraes) 8 945 edits →‎Geskiedenis, mylpale en sake Nuwer wysiging →
Lyn 72: Desember [[2003]]: [[RIAA]] teen [[Verizon]], Die EFF ondersteun Verizon in 'n suksesvolle teenstaan van 'n laer hof se beslissing wat bepaal dat die maatskappy die identiteit van 'n [[Verizon]] kliënt moet bekendmaak wat daarvan beskuldig is dat hy kopiereg geskend het deur lêers te deel op 'n [[eweknie netwerk]] met [[KaZaA]] sagteware. Die Appelhof het met [[Verizon]] en die EFF saamgestem en bepaal dat die spesiale dagvaardiging bepalings van die [[DMCA]] wetgewing van toepassing is op materiaal wat op 'n [[internet diensverskaffer]] se rekenaaar gestoor is en nie op materiaal wat op 'n indiwidu se eie rekenaar gestoor is nie. [[2004]]: DirecTV teen Treworgy. Die EFF help om die eienaar van "smart card" tegnologie Mike Treworgy te verdedig nadat [[DirecTV]] 'n hofgeding teen hom aanhangig gemaak het op gronde daarvan dat hy hardeware aangeskaf het wat gebruik kon word om die maatskappy se satelietseine te onderskep. Treworgy het sy saak gewen en die Appelhof het beslis dat [[DirecTV]] nie gedinge aanhangig kan maak teen mense vir die blote besit van smart-card tegnologie nie. In afsonderlike onderhandelinge met [[DirecTV]] het die EFF daarin geslaag om die maatskappy te kry om sy "skuldig-by-aankoop" strategie te laat vaar. [[19 April 19]], [[2004]]: Word die ''[[Patent Busting Projek]]'' geloods om patente wat deur die organisasie gesien word as misbruik van die wetgewing om vindingrikheid in nie-kommersiële toepassings en klein ondernemings te onderdruk of daarop gemik is om vryheid van spraak te onderdruk. Mei [[2004]] [[ACLU teen Ashcroft]]. Ondersteun die ACLU se teenstaan van die grondwetlikheid van wetgewing wat die [[FBI]] in staat stel om internet diensverskaffers te dwing om kommunikasie rekords te hou sonder om juridiese oorsig te vereis. In September [[2004]], is die wetgewing geskrap. <!-- Moet vertaal word [[April 19]], [[2004]]: Initiated the [[Patent Busting Project]] to challenge "illegitimate patents that suppress non-commercial and small business innovation or limit free expression online" May [[2004]] [[ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004)\|Doe v. Ashcroft]]. Filed amicus supporting ACLU's challenge to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2709, which authorizes the FBI to compel the production of subscriber and communications records in the possession of a broad range of ISPs, potentially covering billions of records from tens of thousands of entities. These demands, known as National Security Letters, were issued without judicial oversight of any kind, yet allowed the FBI to obtain a vast amount of constitutionally protected information. In September [[2004]], Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York issued a landmark decision striking down the NSL statute and the associated gag provision. August [[2004]]: [[Chamberlain v. Skylink]]. EFF helped defend Skylink in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\|Federal Circuit]] that puts limits on the controversial "anti-circumvention" provision of the [[DMCA]]. Chamberlain, the manufacturer of garage doors, invoked the provision to stop Skylink from selling a "universal" remote control that works with Chamberlain garage doors. The court rejected Chamberlain's claims, noting that if it adopted the company's interpretation of the [[DMCA]], it would threaten many legitimate uses of software within electronic and computer products—something the law aims to protect. [[August 19]], [[2004]]: defeat[http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_08.php#001833] in MGM vs. Grokster[http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/]. [[Fred von Lohmann]] of EFF as lead counsel representing Streamcast Networks. EFF prevailed before the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] with a decision affirming the "Betamax doctrine"—the rule following the Supreme Court's 1984 holding that a company that creates a technology cannot be held liable for copyright violations by users if the technology has substantial legal uses. The [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that neither were liable for infringements by people using their software to distribute copyrighted works. However, on [[June 27]], [[2005]] U.S. Supreme Court reversed, finding the defendants liable for copyright infringement, though the Court preserved the Betamax doctrine. Co-defendant Grokster eventually settled with MGM and disbanded the company.

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Verskil tussen weergawes