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?

About the Author

[Nom du Keyboard]

Be sure to read about the author at the end of the second page. Makes me want to go check my calendar. Awful cold outside for April.

A very interesting article...

[kahei]

...is what I thought this might be. I thought it might be a deep and timely inquiry into how the legal battles of the new era can be fought effectively when it falls to amateurs and part-timers to fight them.

But then I noticed it was in The Register! Haw! You guys got me good!

Pale Vegetarians?

[StefanJ]

I have it on good authority that EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow hunts elk with a obsidian spear, and eats the livers of his prey while still warm and dripping in blood.

Cory Doctorow is said to stalk, kill, and eat emus during his frequent, clandestine trips to Australia.

The only vegetables served in the cafeterias of the EFF Tower -- formerly the Transamerica Pyramid -- are potatoes and a bit of parsely, and only to accompany great the rare steaks favored by the employees.

"Pale vegetarians?" Fah!

Re:'Inflammatory' indeed.

[gowen]

honestly..."Bonhomie Snoutintroff"???

Don't knock. With a name like that, Bonhomie Snoutintroff is odds on to be the next "Defense Against The Dark Arts" master at Hogwarts...

Re:What do you think?

[Alan Livingston]

... /. editor's question is ignorant.

What? You would expect something different than ignorance from Zonk the Fuck-tard?

Anagram

[UESMark]

I really don't have the energy to pore through the results of an anagram finder, but Bonhomie Snoutintroff seems to me to be an obvious anagram with "eff" in it. --mark

Re:'Inflammatory' indeed.

[cpt kangarooski]

Meh. That job has higher turnover (and is only a little bit safer) than being the drummer for Spinal Tap.

Re:humorless prigs

[mellon]

I dunno, mate, I thought it was pretty funny, and I'm a pale vegetarian myself.

Well, actually, not so pale. Arizona sun and all, eh?

Re:humorless prigs

[FurryFeet]

The trouble with many brits is that while they understand the basic concept of traditional dry british humor, they almost always do it badly. They mistake deadpan delivery of random combinations of weak sarcasm and patent absurdity for wit. They then claim the audience is too low-brow to catch the subtlety of the humor, when in reality it's just not particularly funny.

The thing is, it's terribly hard to transmit subtle irony in writing. For example, I'm torn in trying to decide wheter you are rationally dissecting the flaws in British humour or you are deadpanly delivering random combinations of weak sarcasm and patent absurdity.

I guess that if you reply and claim that I'm too lowbrow to catch the subtlety of your humor, we'll know.

Re:Losses overreported by the pigopolists, perhaps

[susano_otter]

Couldn't it just as easily be the other way 'round?

That this is the same media that had to make it look like Bush was some kind of draft-dodger to counter the inherent pansy-ness of a decorated war vet?

Remember who told you about who controls the media and manufactures consent thereby [wikipedia.org].

Last time I checked, he gets paid by MIT, which has strong ties to the military-industrial complex. So either he's a part of the conspiracy (probably an uwitting stooge), or there is no conspiracy (which much more plausibly explains why he's allowed to rant about the things he rants about).

I mean, seriously. If Chomsky is right about the manufacturing of consent and all, why does the military-industrial complex let him have such a bully pulpit? Can you give any other explanation than "reverse-psychology Jedi mind shit, just like in Orwell, man!"?