I read the PDF, and found it to be heavily biased. No lawmaker or politican would take this document seriously, as it doesn't even ATTEMPT to show both sides of the story. Sure, the DMCA sucks, but crap like THIS isn't going to change anyone's minds.
Some of the cases that they talked about were flagrant examples of piracy, which would have been convicted for various copyright violations regardless of the DMCA. Anyone with some common sense knows that many of these programs mentioned were not designed with the innocent and benevolant "fair use" explanations that were stated in this document, but were DESIGNED to allow people to make and distribute illegal copies of copyrighted materials.
Anyway, it's an excellent example on how news stories can be "rewritten" to support any viewpoint. I'd imagine that if the EFF would right about the early days of Napster, they would completely focus on the few small music artists who successfully used to to distribute their music. They probably wouldn't even mention the millions of copyrighted MP3's available, which made up the overwhelming majority of songs downloaded.