EFF Has Outlived Its Usefulness? 436
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?
'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
One thing is for sure...even if "Bonhomie" went by a less ludicrous pen name (honestly..."Bonhomie Snoutintroff"???), and refrained from such pejorative terms as 'pigopolists' and 'pale vegetarians', he still couldn't be taken seriously, due to his gross misrepresentation of the facts. Bonhomie cited six losses by the EFF...visit the EFF's legal victories page [eff.org], and you'll see several wins that Bonhomie conveniently failed to mention.
This kind of vapid tripe is pathetic even for the Register's admittedly lax standards. In case there remains any doubt, I leave you with the short bio of "Bonhomie Snoutintroff", which was appended to the 'article' in question:
Why the hell isn't this in the 'humor' section....of either site?
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:humorless prigs (Score:3, Insightful)
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 subtlet
Re:humorless prigs (Score:4, Funny)
Well, actually, not so pale. Arizona sun and all, eh?
Re:humorless prigs (Score:5, 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:humorless prigs (Score:3)
No, it isn't! Are you being sarcastic?
=D
Re:humorless prigs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:4, Funny)
I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly the philosophy of the ACLU, btw. It should be the philosophy of any good attorney. Foolishly jumping into the fray "for the good fight" is a good way down the road to a phyric victory. Losing sets precedents, and the legal system does not give "A"s for "Effort".
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the EFF losing, or is this just corruption of the courts?
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
You have completely missed the point. The courts are upholding LAWS. Laws that have gotten passed at the behest of big business in CONGRESS. You want different outcomes on this sort of stuff (q.v. "broadcast flag"), vote for different people, lobby Congress yourself, take out some advertising, start a grassroots campaign... The options are varied depending on your commitment to change.
Me? I just live without. But I'd be doing that anyway. I
Re:YOU'RE missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
The judiciary is SUPPOSED to meddle and interfere in the shenanigans of the other two branches of the government. That's WHY IT'S THERE. It was all specificially designed that way.
As I see it, they are there to decide cases and controversies. As a byproduct of this role, they must also resolve conflicts between laws (federal vs. state, constitution vs. state and federal, etc). In other words, their meddling role is a byproduct of their function, not the core of it.
My point about Iran was largely miss
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Losses overreported by the pigopolists, perhaps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Losses overreported by the pigopolists, perhaps (Score:3, Funny)
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 plaus
Difficult to argue policy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not precedent (Score:3, Informative)
Even when they loose, they win. They bring the issue to light. If you don't like how they handle a case, then you take the case over or hire a lawyer to take the case over.
This applies to doctors, lawyers, fighters, etc. If you only take easy cases, you can always win. If Mike Tyson only figh
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing that I often get fired up by articles like this, I followed the link to the EFF Legal Victories page, to give them a fair chance. While I'm not saying that the cases they've won aren't important, it would be hard to characterize them as anything but slam dunks. I can't give them a whole lot of credit for successfully arguing things like:
Intel vs. Hamidi -- Intel claims Hamidi's emails 'trespassed on their systems', causing harm.
Felten vs. RIAA -- RIAA tries to stop scientists publishing a paper
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the EFF's victories page. They list MGM v. Grokster. Ummm, I think SCOTUS overturning the 9th Circuit's ruling qualifies as a DEFEAT! So without wasting half my day to chase down their other "victories", I believe I will trust the EFF's objectivity about as much as anyone else (not much as all).
Even
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)
The EFF, on the other hand, stands for essentially one limited set of issues, so it's easier to make a distinction between those issues and others they may or may not agree with.
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ACLU supports civil rights. The way "the system" works is that it takes away the civil rights of the most despised (terrorists, etc.) and disenfranchised (poor, underclass) first and most people support these actions since these people are "evil".
The problem is that once "they" have established the right to take away civil rights, they can come after anyone (even you) if they don't like what you are saying or doing... it's a slippery slope.
The result is that the ACLU often finds itself defending some pretty odious people on principle. This clearly turns off most conformist people who don't understand the basic prinicples that are being defended.
The old saying... "I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend (to the death) your right to say it." (attributed to Voltaire)
Now if you are a true Republican (American Republican, not of the French Republic), you will disavow this since Voltaire was FRENCH.
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, yes. They should be supporting the civil rights of everyone.
They're quick to defend the rights of an artist who has created something that some people find objectionable...provided that it's not a Christian nativity scene on someone's front lawn that non-Christians find objectionable. The ACLU is strangely silent when that happens.
One of my civil rights as a law-abiding citizen is my right to own a gun. Why do we have the NRA? Because the ACLU doesn't defend thi
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the ACLU have defended many Christians (and others) who have been prevented from expressing their religion. That too is a civil liberty.
Unfortunately, you've been mislead that the ACLU is some religious hating organization -- that's patently false.
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh is it? [aclu.org] "September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show." "December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors." "November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school." "August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln." "February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages." "July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school." April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating." "January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways."
Wow, that ACLU sure does turn a blind eye to protecting religion.
I'm quite sure that if a city specifically shut down a nativity scene on private property that the ACLU would be all over it. (Assuming, of course, that the situation was biased. If the city shut down everything on everyone's lawns, navity scenes and garden gnomes alike, it would be stupid, but legal and fair.)
Why do we have an EFF? The ACLU already spends lots of effort fighting for the exact same causes that the EFF does. Ultimately because some peopl prefer to focus in particular areas more than the ACLU does. I suspect the NRA would exist even if the ACLU did defend gun rights.
On that particular issue, well, yes, the ACLU has a different interpretation of the second amendment. [aclu.org] I don't actually agree with their assessment, but they're hardly hostile to gun ownership Unless you found the organization, I doubt you'll find an organization that you entirely agree with. I chose to accept that and support several organizations that work in areas I care about.
William F. Buckley Jr. was defended by the ACLU (Score:3, Informative)
You'd probably be surprised to know that William F. Buckley Jr. was defended by the ACLU in the 70's; and William F. Buckley Jr. is definitely not who you'd think of as your typical ACLU suppo
MGM v. Grokster (Score:5, Insightful)
What SCOTUS said was that Betamax (AKA Sony) was not a carte blanche to facilitate copyright infringement, and that actions taken outside the realm of actual.technology are legitimate targets. In other words, technology per se is off the table provided that it satisfies Sony (the precident, not the company). However, if I sell photocopiers and say "Buy my photocopiers! They are great to copy books with," then I may have stepped over the line.
In many very important ways, the technology community won a number of important victories in the Grokster case, and the media companies were given an arguably fair system, and this is likely to help forestall the next wave of media-bought acts (for example, keeping the INDUCE act from being reintroduced).
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:2)
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is obviously a back-handed remark on the awful current occupant of the White House.
Seriosly, if someone has this as their bio, and is writing this kind of trash about the EFF, then they're obviously trolling. Is sending several thousand hits his way via slashdot the way to reward this kind of trash?
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pro-EFF, but as a matter of full disclosure, it would be nice to have the EFF also maintain a page of legal spankings it took, lessons learned, that sort of thing.
Re:'Inflammatory' indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you think? (Score:4, Insightful)
As the article clearly states, the question is not whether to "fight the good fight", but rather, who should fight the good fight. The article isn't inflammatory. It asks the legitimate question of whether the EFF should handle the Sony DRM case.
Ok, then who? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ok, then who? (Score:2)
There are several suits proceding (Score:3, Informative)
Last I heard, state AG's for Massachussetts, Texas, and California were all lining up their own suits as well.
Doesn't mean the EFF shouldn't also be in the crowd though. The more the better.
Re:What do you think? (Score:2, Insightful)
Article's comment on Gilmore is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Ignore theregister (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ignore theregister (Score:2)
Seriously, I think so much of tech journalism is led by marketing machinery it's good to have some disrespective, thoroughly sceptical writing out there. Maybe their humour just isn't your type.
Re:Ignore theregister (Score:2)
Re:Ignore theregister (Score:2)
... kinda like
-everphilski-
Better (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have to fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you have to fight (Score:2)
Re:If you have to fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to invoke Godwin's law or anything, but if one were to indeed use any means necessary, then the Nazi's didnt really do anything repugnant with the concentration camps. The Japanese didnt do anything wrong with Pearl Harbor. And Saddam Hussein didnt do anything wrong when he gassed the Kurds. And, using your argument, there wouldnt seem to be anything wrong with the actions of the 9/11 bombers either.
As in all things, there are limits. The ends do not always justify the means because as someone else put it "what good is it if you win the war but lose your soul?".
Re:If you have to fight (Score:4, Interesting)
With all due respect to the EFF, though, they are fighting a legal rearguard action. The problem is that the legislation they're opposing is meant to be crooked. The courts will ony go so far in opposing the will of Congress and the executive branch. The end goal needs to be repeal of the idiotic laws and regulations that throw away the fundamental rights of the majority in order to keep a dying revenue stream alive a little bit longer.
And by the way, Snoutintrough is a satirical column.
The Cream Gang (Score:5, Interesting)
Our findings, here:
Open Rights Group Launch [cream.org]
Open Rights Shites
This evening, Coxall, Levine and I attended an open meeting of the Open Rights Group, a new UK organisation set in the mould of the EFF. I wasn't expecting the earth to move for me: we've attended too many of these little geek/numeeja run yack-shacks to hope for anything particularly productive to emerge. This evening did its least to confound me.
It was held in a basement in Soho named Zero-One. I say basement, but, naturally, one is encouraged to term it a "creative space". Said "creative space" was filled with geeks and numeedjas, as well as a scattering of lawyer-types and Earnest Young Men. Overwhelmingly men, of course, the few women who were there either freaks, sociologists or serving the free cheese and wine. Hey - don't shoot the messenger. A few chairs encircled the basement, but the main floor was bare, to encourage crouching and cross-legged encampment. Oh dear. This was all going to be "inclusive and discursive", wasn't it?
Oh dear, indeed: the manageress of the "creative space" started proceedings. Her introduction was little more than an ad for her basement. She then brought on an ex hack, who spouted some trivial nonsense or other, and was excited by the prospect of setting up ever more "wikis" and "blogs". She, in turn, brought on a jargon-clappy professional "meeting facilitator/consultant". This was going to be "fun".
The evening was to commence with a little talk from some Oxford chap or other, followed by a free-fall clustered discussion, in which each cluster was to be provided with its own sticky wall-covering on which to paste their mindstormingly written postcards.
The Oxford nonentity informed us that the Internet was somewhat marvellous, and, gosh, lots of interesting things might become of it soon, what ho, and it's not just paedophilia and terrorists. The poor fellow seemed trapped in 1994.
The Management Consultant Facilitator then spouted some jargon, and asked the floor for ideas for the discussion clusters. The Earnest Young Men pontificated their banalities. The geeks obsessed about some yawnful minutia. And Coxall suggested we discuss how to win over the "unhosed stupid masses". Yes, that is the phrase he used and, yes, the reaction from this righton bunch of whitebread nonces was predictable. "Maybe if you stopped patronising them like that..." was the immediate response from one of the Earnest Young Men on the floor.
Thence began the multiple clustering. Levine, Coxall and I have attended so many of these nascent talking shops now that we decided to skip with the usual niceties and begin some good old Trotskyite agitation. We argued that trying to interest people in the potential problems of overreaching anti-privacy legislation, or draconian Intellectual Property laws and the restrictive technologies therefor, was a lost cause. The "unhosed masses" wouldn't care about these philosophical crampings until they felt the constrictive banding themselves, in their every day lives. We argued for the inculcation of popular anger: to that end, a little DRM here, a little copyright overextension there wasn't enough. We decided that, rather than allow creative society to die the death by a thousand cuts that is its inevitable fate in a world dominated by multi-billion dollar "content" oligarchies, we should use these monoliths' huge power and budgets to subvert themselves from within, to the point where their overreaching hubris could lead to genuine polltax-riot intensity anger, and Berlin-wall-sized dismantlement.
Rather than fiddle with legislation to make it slightly less bad, then, or to try to temper corporate excesses with the few thrown crumbs of compromise, a smartly utilitarian organisati
And that's why Trotskites suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Promote more of the very thing you hate in order to make the people hurt enough to drive them into revolt? Look at what happened with your own example, prohibition.
The temperance movement got a ban on liquor - a recreational drug with significant downsides. Net effect was to make it more popular and fund the development of organized crime, the BATF, and self-defense bans in the US.
After a decade of horrendous body counts and far larger counts of people injured by adulterated product and gang violence, public pressure finally got the law repealed. But the dead were still dead, the crippled were still crippled, and organized crime is still with us - along with the out of control bureaucracies, which were converted to drug (starting with marijuana) and firearms law enforcement rather than disbanded.
The harm continues, and escalates, to this day, with urban drug gangs and violence, RICOing of drug users' assets, and such debacles as Waco and Ruby Ridge.
All this over the freedom to have a little drink when you party.
Yet you advocate repeating this DELIBERATELY as your solution to restrictions on information technology? A decade of war - or more, since that technology is the main tool of resistance?
Then there's the other thing such groups do: Disrupt any tyranny-resistance organization that isn't doing things THEIR way, in order to take it over if it can be, destroy it if not. Here we have the first meeting of such an organization, and (as is usual for first meetings) it has a lot of disorganization and a heavy sprinkling of well-meaning flakes among the activists. These things generally get sorted out quickly, if proceedings aren't disrupted. So what do you do? When they don't instantly do things your way, you disrupt them.
Congratulations. Maybe you killed it. Maybe you just made it less responsive to popular input. But you certainly aren't getting the problem solved.
Unless the problem is Trotskyites - and other, similar, communist/socialist factions.
That problem you're putting right in people's faces, so they can see what you are.
Back in the '60s we had a saying: "Trots are a case of the slow runs." Thanks for showing us it's true in the naughties as well.
Re:The Cream Gang (Score:3, Insightful)
While I tend to agree with the person who started their post "Nice, another word-wanker.", I also agree with the general point of yours. Personally, I wouldn't have started in your camp in that meeting, but I would've ended up there because I think you're right.
This isn't a fight where a comprimise will leave anybody in a good position. This is one where we have to win in the long run. I think your strategy is the only viable one I've heard that has a chance of accomplishing that.
Ugh. -1 Troll (Score:2)
About the Author (Score:3, Funny)
Actually I agree (Score:3, Interesting)
I think an organization LIKE the EEF is a good thing but needs to be structured in a different way, with more specialized and successful lawyers backing it.
Precidents like... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean Precidents like These [eff.org]? 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 [eff.org]. 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.
Re:Actually I agree (Score:3, Informative)
A very interesting article... (Score:4, Funny)
But then I noticed it was in The Register! Haw! You guys got me good!
Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:2)
What cases have they won?
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:4, Informative)
See the EFF's legal victories page [eff.org].
There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases.
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
These cases of the EFF's aren't like a football league where they've signed up to play every week and they consequently have to play every opponent. In choosing which cases to defend (and put their imprimateur on) they are in position to research the facts, the law and the judicial record of the panel they'll be arguing before. With all that info, one would expect their record
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
First, though the EFF can choose who they defend, the opposition can choose who they prosecute.
Second, the legislation they're trying to fight against is often pernicious, but since it is the law of the land, the only way to fight it is to argue it on constitutional grounds. The courts aren't usually eager to overrule Congress unless they've clearly overreached. So the EFF needs to present a slam-dunk case to a sympathetic judge just to have a chance.
Any decent lawyer could easily ra
Re:Sounds pretty damning. What have they won? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you seem to imply that researching the facts will give you a good idea of how the court will lean. That's not the case. You have arguments and the other side often has also good arguments. It's a coin toss in a lot of cases, and not because the EFF didn't do its job, but because such is the nature of courts.
Its an opinion rather than a news article (Score:2)
But coming to the matter at hand, yes its right that its better not fight if you lose everytime and make a mockery of the matter and everyone else supporting you.
Pale Vegetarians? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
EFF has excellent legal talent (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked with EFF's legal folks and they are very, very good.
And when we went to court [eff.org], we won.
Re:EFF has excellent legal talent (Score:5, Informative)
When I was threatened by a reverse domain hijacking [unicom.com], the EFF provided reference to a lawyer who helped with my case. We won, and I've been told my case has established precedent. As a result of my case, a company cannot try to steal a domain by filing a lawsuit in a distant state.
I'm grateful for the support of the EFF.
Re:EFF has excellent legal talent (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right in that these cases are expensive and that EFF's purse is rather smaller than those of the media companies. From my observation the difference between EFF and the big firms/
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Total garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
The Register is a British publication, and it's very likely the author is British also - the author's bio doesn't state his nationality. I guess this Brit feels he (or she) is a really good judge of American lawyers and the American legal system, and this places him in a good position to comment meaningfully on the merits of the actions taken by the EFF. (How many American journalists have an intimate understanding of the British courts, sufficient to write about British legal practice?)
The author also seems to be privy to the inner workings of the EFF and feels qualified to judge the merits of each case cited in the article. Or possibly he has some sort of axe to grind. It's hard to know where to start correcting his comments, and frankly it isn't worth it taking the time.
The article is a piece of garbage and fully worthy of being published in the Register.
They say that Americans never understand Irony... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it appears they are right....
Also note.. Sarcasm is NOT the same as irony, and irony is NOT like "goldy" or "silvery".
Well....if you don't like the article.... (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, RTFA before you do. Not that he'll probably be able to tell
However, I'm unsure of how/why this is news for us exactly. Great discussion question, perhaps, but do we really want a guy by the name of Bonhomie Snoutintroff to be the one creating ripples in the tech community
I refer you to some EFF propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
I won't try to argue here, but I will suggest, in the interest of balance, that you check out EFF's list of legal victories [eff.org].
Re:I refer you to some EFF propaganda (Score:2)
Re:I refer you to some EFF propaganda (Score:2)
I mean, where's the
What happened to The Register? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowadays, all their articles seem to be written by brainless trolls.
It's funny -- laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
I object (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:2)
That's complete BS. We need more organizations like the EFF and more funding to support them. The internet should be become the greatest interactive public library in history, not a logjammed pollbooth laden series of checkpoints and chokestops.
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
And more baseball teams like the Cubs. Or more movies like Battlefield Earth.
Anagram (Score:2, Funny)
Instead of whining about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't hurt to help the EFF [eff.org] out with a donation in this holiday giving season. If the EFF is losing cases that it ought to be winning, I don't imagine that it's for lack of a clue. It's probably just outgunned by the huge, deep-pocketted corporations and industry associations that it takes on. EFF and ACLU seem like the two best organized outfits that are standing up for our rights, so search your sofa for loose change and help 'em both out.
And although it sounds tired, it never hurts to let your elected representatives know what you think. If they hear from enough of us, they really will do something about it.
Re:Instead of whining about it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the problem is that they're losing cases they ought to be winning, but rather that they're taking (too many?) cases that they are going to lose.
The ACLU has the same problem. Maybe they want to be seen as filers of frivolous baseless suits, but to many of us, many of the suits both groups pursue seem to have this flavor - pie in the sky...
If they just took a few less unrealistic positions, I think they'd convince a lot more people that they're trying to do the right thing rather than just the
No money in education (Score:3, Informative)
This is satire, right?
If you are talking about the United States, we hardly spend any [nationmaster.com] money at all [nationmaster.com] on education, comparatively-speaking.
April 1st already? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exaggeration? It modifies the behavior of the OS at the lowest level possible for anyone outside Microsoft, for the purpose of hiding files and processes performing whatever Sony wants. It allows activity below the level of any user environment, thus allowing for what amounts to the ultimate in "privelage escalation". What do you call a rootkit, if not that?
beneficial to the entertainment pigopolists
Puh-lease. I loathe the RIAA et al as much as the next geek, but save the name-calling for the discussion. FPs should at least pretend to have some objectivity. If I still believed in Slashdot Editors (you know, like Santa and the Tooth Fairy), I would say they should never have let this one through.
They listed the worst possible cases... (Score:2, Informative)
US judges don't like to make political decisions (Score:3, Insightful)
The EFF's weakness isn't that they lose. It's that they fight cases they shouldn't. You want to structure things so that even if you lose in the court because the law's wrong, the publicity is positive so that you can go to the people to make the law right. Never take a case that detracts from your credibility.
Case in point: Mr. "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" whines that the EFF won't be able to get a US judge to rule that anonymous travel on eminently hijackable aircraft is a fundamental right. Well, duh. In the face of worldwide terrorism, NO ONE could do that. It's settled law that aircraft travel is not treated the same as walking down the street (which is why the government can legally search you prior to boarding). The real question is why did the EFF take this up at all? Is there no better place to spend their energies?
Pick your fights, EFF. Pick your fights.
I think he missed some research (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the case eventually get thrown out? Or, to put it more precisely, didn't the MPAA give up because they knew the cat was out of the bag? Isn't he know free, and writing lots of other interesting stuff?
Indeed, there is no good reason why anyone should not be permitted to travel incognito, and many good reasons why one should. This is a case that can, and should, be won. Surely, only an EFF principal could blow this one, yet blow it he did.
What? This is the absolute worst environment to be trying this kind of case. We have a "war on terror", and this guy thinks a case involving NOT identifying oneself while boarding a plane is a good idea that "should" be won? This guy is nuts...
I have no idea about the EFF's track record, but this guy seems to be wildly off....
Re:I think he missed some research (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of those things that I, personally, could go either way on. Does it really hurt public safety if unidentified passengers are on a flight? Maybe - I don't know, I'm not an expert in this kind of thing. But it does seem like, if someone is willin
Re:I think he missed some research (Score:3, Informative)
OK. You're wrong. Corely lost all the way up to the 2nd District Court of Appeals, the last step before the Supreme Court. He did not appeal to SCOTUS, the EFF even has a press release on their site announcing they gave up.
At least the PLAINTIFF knew when he was beaten, unlike the EFF.
story as old as time (Score:5, Insightful)
pragmatism does, and you don't have to sacrifice any of your ideals to be pragmatic about how to work them. in other words, you don't sacrifice your principles by playing them correctly, it's an unfounded fear that by playing it any other way except straight you are somehow sacrificing your ideals. this is not a cynical observation, it's a tactical one
the ivory tower approach to life may well make you feel smug and superior in life, but it doesn't help with a messy struggle in the mud. you don't lose when you go the idealistic route, you just wind up not playing the game, and becoming irrelevant to the causes you care about
Newmark suit (ReplayTV) (Score:4, Informative)
Second, sometimes losing is the only way to cast in stark relief deep efforts by companies to hide what they're doing. This will (eventually) produce a change only if citizens want their rights back and elect folks who campaign (however cynically) on that matter. It's not important to constituents on the whole yet. Hollywood's contributions are laughably small in the scale of things.
Third, the Newmark v. lawsuit that I was part of to preserve consumer rights in the ReplayTV lawsuit, established a precedent even though we didn't "win." The suit was eventually settled by ReplayTV's buyer (the company that bought the product line out of bankruptcy of the parent firm), but the judge in the case allowed us as consumers to join a lawsuit in which consumer rights were threatened. Thank you, EFF.
Don't let the facts get in the way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, there is no good reason why anyone should not be permitted to travel incognito, and many good reasons why one should. This is a case that can, and should, be won. Surely, only an EFF principal could blow this one, yet blow it he did. The combination of Gilmore's preposterous and inflammatory libertarian rhetoric and his unreasonable demand that he not be subject to any security measures, like a bag search and a pat down, mean that his appeal, scheduled for 8 December, will almost certainly go down the tubes with his original attempt."
I'm grateful that the man is willing to volunteer his time to defend citizens' rights in the courts, but deliberately lumping elements that will surely be defeated into a winnable case makes you wonder who's side he's really on.
Re:Crucial? (Score:3, Interesting)
There should be prison time for whoever decided it was a good idea to install a rootkit on their customers' computers. The company should be deemed criminally negligent and be forced to pay all reasonable costs (IT expenses, consultant fees, etc.) as well as punitive damages to all individuals who bought a CD and own a computer.
Make it stick so that other companies won't be tempted to do the same thing.
People go to jail f
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
Um, because regardless of any direct benefit any consumers receive, a corporation will learn that unethical, anti-consumer behavior is frowned upon by the very people it claims to serve?
At their bottom line, where it hurts the most?
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
Why do you care what they learn?
I don't care if anyone learns anything. If they have items I want to buy, I'll buy them based on the benefit to me.
Sounds like: In lieu of a real benefit, we'll motivate ourselves based on pretend benefits and wishes.
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
Read the rest of the sentence, silly!
"...it's crucial that the company get its bottom spanked spanked quite painfully as a deterrent to its sister cartels in the entertainment racket."
It's a deterrent. The point is to discourage other would-be malware distributors.
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
Because it's worked out so well for Sony so far.
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
Re:Crucial? (Score:2)
But wanting revenge against Sony because you heard online that they installed some bad software somewhere is beyond juvenile. And I'm tired of our society being ruled by the feelings of overgrown children.
Re:Let the Facts Speak - EFF's Track Record: F (Score:3)
Since you've dragged this conversation down to the level of farce (and let's face it, it's all your fault, and probably your original intention), let's recap the conversation so far: