Electronic Frontier Foundation: Verskil tussen weergawes

Content deleted Content added
RAM (besprekings | bydraes)
RAM (besprekings | bydraes)
Lyn 74:
*[[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.
*Augustus [[2004]]: [[Chamberlain teen Skylink]]. Die EFF staan Skylink by in hul verdedeging by die Appélhof van die V.S.A. Chamberlain het die bepalings van [[DMCA]] wetgewing probeer afdwing om te verhoed dat Skylink 'n universele afstandbeheer verkoop wat ook met Chamberlain se motorhuisdeure kon werk. Die hof het Chamberlain se eise van die hand gewys en daarop gewys dat as die hof Chamberlain se interpretasie van die [[DMCA]]-wetgewing sou aanvaar dit baie wettige gebruike van sagteware binne elektroniese en rekenaarprodukte sou bedreig.
 
*[[19 August]], [[2004]]: 'n Nederlaag [http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_08.php#001833] in die MGM teen Grokster[http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/] saak. [[Fred von Lohmann]] van die EFF was die hoof regsverteenwoordiger vir Streamcast Networks. Die EFF het aanvanklik hulle hofsaak gewen deur te betoog dat tegnologie wat betekenisvolle wettige toepassings het, nie verantwoordelik gehou kan word vir kopieregmisbruike deur die gebruikers van sulke tegnologie nie. Die hooggeregshof het egter die bevinding omgekeer en bevind dat die verdediging verantwoordelik is vir die kopieregskendings.
*[[October 6 Oktober]], [[2004]]: In cooperationsamewerking withmet 8 otherander publicopenbare interestbelangegroepe organizations,word submitted'n avertoog briefsaamgestel [http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#001968] challengingwaarin thedie [[FCC|Federal Communications Commission|FCC's]] authorityse togesag imposeom thedie [[broadcast flag]] mandate,mandaat whichuit waste tovoer goteengestaan into effect during [[July 2005]]word.
*[[15 Oktober]], [[2004]]: Suksesvolle verteenwoordiging van die ISP Online Policy Group (OPG) en twee Swarthmore College studente wat groot sekuriteitsflaters in die [[Diebold Verkiesingsmasjiene]] gepubliseer het. Diebold is beskuldig om die eerste maatskappy te wees wat seksie 512 (f) van die [[DMCA]] te oortree deur iemand te dreig terwyl hulle terdeë daarvan bewus was dat 'n oortreding nie plaasgevind het nie.
 
<!-- Moet vertaal word
 
*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&mdash;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"&mdash;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.
*[[October 6]], [[2004]]: In cooperation with 8 other public interest organizations, submitted a brief [http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2004_10.php#001968] challenging the [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC's]] authority to impose the [[broadcast flag]] mandate, which was to go into effect during [[July 2005]].
*[[October 15]], [[2004]]: Successfully represented the nonprofit ISP Online Policy Group (OPG) and two Swarthmore College students who published major security flaws in [[Diebold Election Systems]] [[voting machine]]s. From the press release: "Diebold is the first company to be held liable for violating section 512(f) of the [[DMCA]]. which makes it unlawful to use [[DMCA]] takedown threats when the copyright holder knows that infringement has not actually occurred."
*[[2004]]: JibJab Media v. Ludlow Music, N.D. Cal. EFF successfully defended [[JibJab]], the creators of a parody flash animation piece using [[Woody Guthrie]]'s "[[This Land Is Your Land]]"&mdash;and uncovered evidence that the classic folk song is in fact already part of the [[public domain]].
*November [[2004]]: Filed brief opposing the [[Federal Communications Commission|FCC's]] proposal to expand [[Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act|CALEA]] to broadband Internet access providers and [[VOIP]] systems.