Is the EFF Harmful to Consumer Rights?

By | December 7th, 2005 comments icon (2) Comments


eff logoThe Register is blasting the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) for screwing things up, again. This time it’s for fouling up the Sony BMG “rootkit” case (via ManagingRights.com). “This is, in fact, such an important matter to that the worst possible development would be to find the EFF arguing the case. That’s because EFF will do what it always does: lose, and set a legal precedent beneficial to the entertainment pigopolists. By the time these pale vegetarians get finished, spreading musical malware will be considered a spiritual work of mercy, ” says writer Bonhomie Snoutintroff (made-up name to protect his identity).

The Register further goes on to air-out the EFF’s dirty laundry and lists every notable failure that the so called “advocacy group” is responsible for:

Lest readers think this prediction too pessimistic, let’s review EFF’s major accomplishments.

They sent Lawrence Lessig before the US Supreme Court to make a muddle of Eldred v. Ashcroft, an important case that’s now settled in favor of the media pigopolists.

They persuaded Princeton University Computer Science Professor Edward Felten to withdraw from a talk on the old SDMI challenge, and later trumpeted it as an example of speech being “chilled” by DMCA threats. (Yet, once he’d enacted that media stunt, Felten delivered his talk at a different conference and survived without a scratch.)

Meanwhile, EFF sued to get a research exemption to the DMCA – a worthwhile cause to be sure – and, predictably, blew that as well. There’s another precedent for the other side.

They defended two amateur online journos against Apple’s ham-fisted effort to silence criticism, and got beat down severely: another bad precedent.

They also defended 2600 publisher Eric Corely, who was barred from posting or linking to the DeCSS DVD descrambling utility of “DVD Jon” fame, and they lost.

The Register also points out that John Gilmore, an EFF co-founder and board member, “has independently taken up one of the more important civil-liberties causes of recent years, attempting to sue for the right to travel by air within the USA without having to show identification.” That’s scary! But, it’s really no surprise given the group’s extreme left leanings and its ties to the ACLU. As always, be careful who you align yourself with… you might wake up and realize you’re sleeping with the Devil.

Note: To our politically conservative readers, the EFF has (in the not too distant past) posted banners on their site promoting the removal of military recruiters from college and high school campuses.





Filed in: Industry Buzz

  • jakeludington

    If you look at the failures cited in the Register’s article, it’s somewhat questionable whether they are truly deemed failures or were merely doomed from the start. It’s romantic to think that ThinkSecret shouldn’t be punished for leaking confidential information, when it was clear that some of the rumors they leaked directly impacted sales and expectations when they proved incorrect. The DeCSS example didn’t stop the information from being public, so who really lost. The Eldred example went as well as could be expected under the circumstances. These are all cases that needed representation but had a very remote chance for success no matter who represented them because they all pose a threat to someone else’s intellectual property.

    The Register conveniently ignores some of the EFF’s important successes, which have help protect privacy in the U.S., set a precedent regarding the use of PVR hardware for time shifting shows, defeated a claim that would have severely limited the functionality of universal remote controls and defeated several heavy-handed copyright claims.

    Jake Ludington
    http://www.jakeludington.com
    http://www.sync2play.com

  • http://www.alexandergrundner.com Alexander Grundner

    There’s a pretty good discussion on this topic going on at Slashdot. Einhverfr writes: “Often the battles for our rights are far more subtle than they appear. These center around what evidence is admissable before the court, on what basis one can be found guilty for violating laws, and on what basis one can be found liable for damages. It is in these areas that the meat and substance of a precident lie.”