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:The Cream Gang

[illumin8]

The public meeting ended, our board full of sardony. Gedankenexperiment? Genuinely useful methodology? Epater le bourgeois? Pisstake? Some and all of the above, probably. But a hell of a lot more interesting than the anodyne pap drafted by the rubbishers in the rest of the room.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say "Did you just make these words up?"

Numeeja? Gedankenexperiment? (ok, this one is actually a legitimate word) Epater le bourgeois? Pisstake? Anodyne (so is this one) Pap?

Seriously, I found your article interesting, but a bit too haughty for my taste. Do you honestly think using words that aren't even in the Oxford English dictionary makes you superior to the proles? Grow up a little bit. Those of us that have a decent command of the english language don't need to use mumbo-jumbo to prove our superiority to others.

Cheers.