I actually have no idea if ESA has a case. This is a complicated situation. I generally want licenses to be enforceable but reasonable, and a narrowly tailored copyright exemption might be a good way to ensure they're reasonable.
What I am sure of is that EFF's blog post blatantly misrepresents the case ESA is trying to make.
Ah, whoops. No idea why I thought you were a gamer, sorry.
I agree. The blog post would carry more force by presenting the ESA's points and demonstrating why they're unrelated to the idea at hand: to revive an abandoned videogame, one simply needs to hack together a fake gameserver. That's doable without modifying anything, so the legality of hacking consoles or jailbreaking shouldn't be at issue. Etc. If the EFF were to point out how strange those arguments sound when contrasted with the reality of what people want to do, it would be much more effective.
Thanks for breaking out the ESA's points from that 71-page document. They don't make it an enjoyable read.
What I am sure of is that EFF's blog post blatantly misrepresents the case ESA is trying to make.
(Also: not a gamer!)