This case is well-planned activism. Bunnie and EFF team certainly know more about free speech and copyright than you or I do. Perhaps you don't likr the press release, but that necessarily simplifies and reduces the detailed arguments they will have to brief before the court.
We'll see about that. We can revisit this case when it goes further down the line, because I study copyright extensively and follow these cases often. It's not that I don't like the press release, it's that it contains factual errors and if you want to believe them, then that's not constructive.
You're selecting such a limited example that is so far out from what the implication of destroying DRM is that while I've made an error, I did so in a fundamentally honest fashion, which is the opposite of what the EFF is doing. They are lying about remix culture to engender support. So, which error is more egregious in the grand scheme of things?
