EFF Has Outlived Its Usefulness?

An anonymous reader writes "An inflammatory article runs today on The Register, with the title EFF Volunteers to Lose Sony Rootkit Suit. The article argues that the EFF's track record in court is detrimental to everyone with an interest in digital and privacy rights." From the article: "This is a very good cause. Sony installed stealth spyware on many thousands of Windows computers (although calling it a rootkit is an exaggeration), and it's crucial that the company get its bottom spanked quite painfully as a deterrent to its sister cartels in the entertainment racket. This is, in fact, such an important matter 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." What do you think? Isn't it better to fight the good fight?

Comments

Re:'Inflammatory' indeed.

[ergo98]

After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.

Or maybe it was just a great topic to earn a Slashdot swarm? Writers often have little personally invested in the things they write about. Instead they write what people want to hear, or what they know will get them attention (see John C. Dvorak). I doubt the apparently fake guy has an "axe to grind".

In any case, even flamebait stories like this often have a grain of truth to them, and if it does inspire some discussion it can be beneficial. For instance there is truth that precedent is extremely important, and it is critical that early cases are argued as effectively as possible.

humorless prigs

[rodentia]

Cultures not dominated by humorless prigs and literalists don't require flags to signal humor.

This particular form is called satire and is widely used to call attention to self-importance or arrogance.

Precidents like...

[SuperKendall]

...but the fact remains that if precedents are being set here...

You mean Precidents like These? Or lobbying efforts like getting rid of the broadcast flag?

Should any organization be required to win 100% of its legal battles (on behalf of the public I might add) in order to gain support? I don't think setting an impossible standard is a helpful guide for deciding what organizations to support.

The EFF has been fairly effective in legal matters, and even more effective in educational areas like lobbying. AS that is the key to a better future (better to never have a bad law passed than to fight it latre through the courts) it is important to support the EFF as they are pretty much the ONLY group that understands the deep technological chasms laws can veer into. Are you honestly going to trust the ACLU to handle stuff like P2P?

For those who see the value in having an organization fighting for technical rights, you can donate to the EFF here. I donate every year and really all of us in the technical field should feel ashamed if we are not supporting the people that brought down things like the broadcast flag.

Difficult to argue policy

[Kevbo]

For the most part, the EFF argues policy when they go before the judge. It is very difficult to take the stance that EFF does and say, to this effect: "Even though Eric Corley/Grokster/etc violated the statute, it does not stand to reason that this party should be at fault because the very nature of the statute is wrong." Or something to that effect.

The EFF takes the most difficult side and tries to prevail. Even if they are not successful in the courts, they are certainly successful at raising awareness. Furthermore, there is no "public defender" for copyright cases. If you violate someone's copyright, you are paying for your own lawyer. The ACLU is not going to jump in, so your only chance at a defense is to spend out-of-pocket, or get an organization like the EFF to back you up. Even if you do pay money for a lawyer, much of his work has been done by the EFF, which results in lower fees for the client

I do not think the EFF has outlived its usefulness.

Re:I dunno

[einhverfr]

IANAL, so take this with an appropriate amount of salt.

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.

For example, in the Betamax case, the court ruled that it was insufficient to argue that because Sony knew that the Betamax VCR's could be used to violate copyrights when arguing that Sony should be held liable for damages caused by users of the product. This isn't really surprising. Just because a hardware company knows that, say, a hammer could be used for various types of illegal activity up to and including murder, one would not really consider holding them liable for wrongful death damages on that basis alone (and appeals courts have releatedly upheld the same standard for gun manufacturers too). In essence, the court said in Betamax that if a product has substantive legal uses, then knowledge of potential or actual illegal uses is insufficient to hold the manufacturer responsible.

In Grokster, the court looked at whether a manufacturer (under Betamax) could be held liable on grounds other than those covered in Betamax. I.e. if Betamax created a shield that would allow for activities conducted in bad faith to be legally protected. SCOTUS concluded that Betamax only protected the acts of engineering, manufacturing, and distributing the technology, and that arguments could be made about whether the purpose of the company or the product was specifically to facilitate copyright infringement regardless or substantive legal uses. In other words, if you make P2P software, that doesn't make you liable, but if you advertise it saying "Download any songs you want" then that advertisement itself might make one liable. This distinction is a critical one and, in many ways, it upholds the substantive protections we have had under the Sony/Betamax precident (Breyer's concurring opinion is probably most eloquent in this regard).

Lets take another example that is not in the domain of the EFF: Jose Padilla. This is a man who was (arguably illegally) imprisoned without trial, access to a lawyer, etc. for three years and has finally been indicted on charges that are fairly minor compared to what he has been accused of doing by our government. Now, I don't really care whether he wins or loses his case. Indeed I hope that in the end justice is served. However, I think that the Supreme Court needs to rule on the legality of Padilla's imprisonment for a number of reasons including what evidence might be allowable at trial and whether the government might have an incentive to undertake similar steps against others in the future. In essence the danger posed by someone like Padilla is far less than the danger posed by an Executive that has freed itself from judicial oversight. In other words, whether Padilla wins or loses, the rules decided in this case may be around for a while, so it is important that we reinforce the protections that we have against arbitrary imprisonment.

In essence, I don't believe that the EFF is doing a bad job. There are a few cases that have gone badly (most notably the 2600 case) but in general, they seem to be doing a good job. I say, "Keep up the good work!"