The Register has a (typically) inflammatory article up which questions the efficacy of the EFF. The article, EFF volunteers to lose important suit over Sony ‘rootkit’, is definitely troll bait. But there is a nugget of truth in it: the EFF does not have a great track record.
This raises two questions in my mind. First, if the EFF weren’t out taking on these kinds of cases, what organization would? Or what organization should be taking these cases? Second, what kind of oversight is there of the job the EFF is doing? I have not read/followed all of the cases that the EFF has been involved with closely, but a few (notably Eldred) have not left me overly impressed. But then again, I’m not sure some of these issues would even be raised if the EFF weren’t pushing them forward.
I don’t think there is a clear cut answer to the questions I posed; I also think the EFF does valuable work. It could very well be that the EFF has a bad track record because they are fighting a horrible system and every point of concession, however minor, is in a way an important victory. But it is plausible that the EFF is just doing a bad job, isn’t it?