At least they did that one thing a while ago and helped sue the RIAA like 10 years ago when someone already started the case. That was a real big PR win for EFF. They can use all those donations to actually fluff their couch and sip iced tea now and publish more damnations from the comfort of their non-profit internet connection.
All the EFF does is take in donations and claim any legal victory as their own, you know because they wrote a letter on their website saying how nasty the defendant is. Thanks EFF! They also help spin pro big-media legislation as victories for information freedom. While people fight against pointless strawmen DRM issues that the industry knows will ultimately fail, the real line is being fortified legally in bills like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Pact has negative conotations) and being enforced at the network level with internet-breaking packet-inspection devices.
Pick one thing in that list that is "ground breaking" where the EFF actually invested their own resources into helping accomplish. Did you even know that the President of EFF owns a record company?
I guess I could throw in Ad Hominem for calling me a troll. Are you into politics or sales? Sorry, that was a loaded question.
"what would they have to do for you to consider them to be worth donating to?"
"something other than having people send forms. They haven't since a legal battle a decade ago. They also are making bad legislation sound good."
["they help, and you haven't been paying attention to them during the last decade."
"they haven't done anything (groundbraking) in the last decade. "]
"What would the eff have to do for you to consider them to have earned your donation? Also I think you are trolling"
"you have yet to prove that the eff has done enough to warrant my donation. We are not talking about what they would have to do to be deserving of donations, we are talking about whether they have done useful things. Also calling me a troll is an ad hominem. Also you are deceptive"
The initial comment for this sub conversation essentially stated that they had not done anything sufficient (lately) to deserve donations.
Afterwards, the person claimed that asking what would be sufficient action to justify donations.
So, "x has not y!" "how can you tell/what do you mean/[something] that x has not y?" "don't change the subject!"
What parts of this post I am making are innaccurate?
Ok, first comment rather says that they take donations and do nothing useful, which isn't neccisarily exactly the same as saying that they haven't done enough to warrant donations.