Here is the email:
Here is the email:
This is most excellent news!!!
As I reported earlier, when the court ruling for the Fourniers and Free Dominion came down, the ruling had indeed been in their favour. However, Richard Warman had appealed and so, having won, their federal case dragged on…
Today, the appeal had been dropped. From Free Dominion:
‘Today we received notices of discontinance from the National Post and from RWarman in the copyright case that was set to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal this coming Wednesday!
We were self-represented in this this case and we won in the lower court but R ichard W arman decided to appeal and the National Post lawyered up and joined in against us.
We fought hard and were so blessed to get two great interveners. The CIPPIC, who also intervened in the privacy motion in the John Doe case, and the CCIA (and American advocacy group that represents Google, eBay, Facebook and many other heavy-hitters).
On the eve of the trial, after all was prepared to go ahead, our opponents just dropped out with no explanation.
We are now entitled to costs on this case, and it is OVER! Great case law has been established, and we have one less lawsuit to think about.
Just a few more weeks and we hope to cross the Baglow one off the list, too!
Onward and upward!
Connie and Mark’
One down, so many more to go… So, while celebrating, why not pop by their legal fund fundraiser and give them some help with the rest of the battles they are fighting on all of our behalfs!
P.S. – I wonder if the EU ruling earlier today had anything to do with the dropping of the appeal…
While most of us would, I hope, consider this common sense, it is nonetheless nice to have the EU courts confirm it.
This is important because the EU has some of the strongest copyright protection laws, which give authors a great deal of control over their published work.
‘The court had to consider whether by providing links Retriever Sverige had taken part in an “act of communication to the public”. Under EU copyright law, authors have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works.
The court ruled that the law had not been broken because the articles in question were on Goteborgs-Posten’s website and therefore already “freely available”.
In a statement it said: “The owner of a website may, without the authorisation of the copyright holders, redirect internet users, via hyperlinks, to protected works available on a freely accessible basis on another site.” ‘
A link that would take you behind a pay-wall, that is a different thing…
However, this ruling parallels the victory Connie and Mark Fournier of the now censored Free Dominion had won in Canada’s federal court over Richard Warman, who claimed they had infringed his copyright by linking to an image on his own website. In this particular case, the judge ruled that Warman had complete editorial control over his image and that linking to it, even should a thumbnail be displayed, did not constitute re-publishing it without permission.
A message from Fight For the Future:
Yesterday, a Federal judge issued a fiery ruling condemning the NSA’s bulk phone record collection program as “likely” unconstitutional. Judge Richard Leon went on to call the program “almost Orwellian” and stated in no uncertain terms that it “infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.” (1)
This is a huge blow to the NSA’s programs — and one that would not have been possible without the massive grassroots movement that YOU helped us build. We’ve been saying these programs are unconstitutional since even before Snowden came along — it feels good to be vindicated, doesn’t it?
”They’re pushing a bill called the “FISA Improvements Act” that would legalize, and even expand, the very same program that Judge Leon just declared unconstitutional.
Make sure you take action on this one — it’s really important — but also take a minute today to savor how awesome this all is: the NSA’s power is crumbling. They’re taking a beating from the courts, the tech community, and even the UN, who recently de clared digital privacy a human right. (3)
It’s important that we keep the pressure on. We’re working on our campaign to take our privacy campaigns to an epic level in the coming year. There are incredibly powerful interests doing everything they can to muddy the debate and keep the NSA in the shadows. And even if Judge Leon’s ruling is upheld, it’s only a beginning, since it would primarily protect the rights of Americans and we all know that EVERYONE deserves freedom and privacy, regardless of where they live.
When I started writing this email, the first thing I wanted to say was “BOOH YAH NSA!” We have a long way to go, but everyone should savor this moment. It’s another big win to add to our streak.
This fight is in Congress, but if you’re not in the U.S. we still need your help to spread the word. U.S. laws unfortunately affect all of us, so share this image to voice your demands. We’re planning more action soon to tackle government surveillance internationally, so stay tuned.
Glad to have you on team Internet,
-Tiffiniy and Evan
Fight for the Future
P.S. We’re just about to start our year-end fundraising drive. Not everyone has the ability to donate, so if you do, please chip in whatever you can here.
P.P.S. We thought we’d leave you with this awesome quote from Edward Snowden himself about Judge Leon’s ruling. The last sentence will give you goosebumps. Also, be sure to read this fascinating account from a current NSA employee that seriously calls into question many of the government’s’ claims about Snowden.
“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.” — Edward Snowden
3) United Nations General Assembly, Third Committee Approves Text Titled “Right to Privacy in the Digital Age.”
General warrants, anyone?
This does not even address the problems inherent in breathalyzer tests.
In other words, if we refuse to submit to a test with an instrument we know is likely to give an artificially high reading and against which there is no defense (as the analyzed sample cannot be retained for more accurate re-testing), we are automatically deemed guilty.
Please, don’t get me wrong: I do not advocate drunk driving. As a matter of fact, I will not drive after having had any alcohol – and will abstain from drinking alcohol if I expect to be driving. Even if I were well under the legal limit, if I were to get into an accident and harmed someone, knowing my reflexes might have been impaired by my irresponsible consumption of alcohol, I would have a hard time living with myself. So, I always drive sober!
In other words, the inaccurate readings of the breathalysers are not likely to ever affect me in the least and I truly ‘have nothing to hide’ – as the video stresses! It is not about ‘hiding something’ – it is about the principle involved!!!
How can so many of our ‘best and brightest’ be so dense?