One of the arguments ESA made seems to resonate with people. I don't think it's at all dishonest to point that out.
We will address the comments more completely with the response filing. In the meantime, I'm glad your 9 minute list exists in case people prefer it to the original.
Here is EFF's chosen title for this article:
Videogame Publishers: No Preserving Abandoned Games, Even for Museums and Archives, Because All "Hacking" is Illegal
Well, that, and about thirty other things.
Later, summarizing EFF's own article, is this sentence, which is its own graf:
Behind this hyperbole, ESA (along with MPAA and RIAA) seem to be opposing anyone who bypasses game DRM for any reason, no matter how limited or important.
This appeal to "hyperbole" is a straw man.
The word hacking was carefully chosen as means of emotional manipulation (see: https://www.google.de/search?q=hacker&tbm=isch ) and is used profusely in the document, mirroring the manner by which the advertisement industry burns brands into the collective memory. The excuse of it standing in for an activity defined as "modify the video game’s access controls" is only given in a footnote, instead as a glaring bold definition, which is intended to hide the fact that the word was redefined. Further, the redefinition itself is laughable since there already exists a solid term for that act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_cracking
There may be further arguments in the document, but it is fairly obvious that they are not the primary payload and are only present to fulfill legal requirements and provide a hull on which the primary payload is carried.
Edit: In short: If you read this document only as a legal document instead of the piece of advertisement aimed at manipulating human emotions it is, you miss the true nuance. And that is what the EFF was crudely pointing out.