 |
|
|
| |
ESA voices support for SOPA legislation
by Tom Curtis [Console/PC, Business]
|
|
| |
|
January 3, 2012
|
| |
The Entertainment Software Association today announced its support for the proposed "Stop Online Piracy Act," a highly contentious bill that would allow the U.S. government and copyright holders to seek court orders against any website that hosts copyright-infringing material.
While companies like Nintendo, Sony, and EA reportedly revoked their initial support for SOPA, these companies are still part of the ESA trade association, meaning that as long as the ESA supports the legislation, its members technically support it by association.
The ESA's list of members includes many of the biggest industry players, including Nintendo, Sony, Electronic Arts, Konami, Capcom, and much more.
Outspoken indie developer Nathan Fouts, whose work includes Serious Sam Double D and Weapon of Choice, criticized the ESA, noting that "as long as the ESA is still listed [as a supporter], the game industry as a whole is supporting SOPA."
In its own statement, the ESA said, "As an industry of innovators and creators, we understand the importance of both technological innovation and content protection, and do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. Rogue websites -- those singularly devoted to profiting from their blatant illegal piracy -- restrict demand for legitimate video game products and services, thereby costing jobs."
"Our industry needs effective remedies to address this specific problem, and we support the House and Senate proposals to achieve this objective. We are mindful of concerns raised about a negative impact on innovation. We look forward to working with the House and Senate, and all interested parties, to find the right balance and define useful remedies to combat willful wrongdoers that do not impede lawful product and business model innovation."
In June 2011, the ESA won a landmark case for the game industry, during which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that video games are protected by the First Amendment, and are thus not to be subjected to government sales regulation.
|
| |
|
|
esa@theesa.com
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72807693/Law-Profs-Letter-Against-SOPA-PROTECT-IP
Also, tell the ESA where to get off (thanks Kevin Gadd) at the email above, and call your Representative. anti-piracy legislation should not be allowed to harm the constitution or give the Government censorship powers that mimic those used by other countries.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120103/00304017255/no-sony-electronics-ninten
do-ea-have-not-publicly-changed-their-position-sopa.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120103/11314417262/ea-we-have-neve r-taken-pos
ition-either-way-sopa-pipa.shtml
"We cannot comment on that because our direction X supports SOPA"
or something like:
"Sorry but we are infighting, we will reply later."
I've read the relevant parts of the proposed legislation. As a (very minor) creator of digital property I agree with the idea that it is important to strongly protect property rights. And I understand the proposed law's approach to enforcing that protection by cutting off payment to and advertising for sites that torrent movies and music and games. (This understanding that protecting property rights is the fundamental requirement for a productive society is what is conspicuously missing from this news story.)
But even I am concerned by the practical consequences were this particular bill to become law. Beyond being skeptical on general principles about piling on yet more federal law, there are specific likely impacts that deserve close scrutiny. Forcing the likes of PayPal and Google's AdSense to set up people and processes for accepting and acting on federal notifications that some site is distributing lots of copyrighted property imposes additional federal regulatory costs on them and smaller businesses like them -- not a desirable thing at the best of economic times, which these aren't. This isn't trivial; imposing costs on businesses means there's less money available for putting people to work.
Maybe even more problematic is the creation of still more federal bureaucracy: people to monitor web sites for copyright violations, more people to assess value claims to determine if a site is in violation, even more people at State and Commerce to try to manage non-U.S. torrent sites. Is the cost of these further additions to an already bloated federal leviathan really outweighed by the the potential benefits of reducing property theft?
I think a reasonable case could be made either way. I hope future stories on this subject will offer that balanced presentation of the facts and positions, at least to the extent possible given reasonable efforts to "reach out" to knowledgeable people on both sides of the question.
Most of the Senators 'debating' the SOPA bill just want to get the tubes of the Intarwebs back under the control of the lobbyists that paid them a huge amount of money. Watching the C-SPAN coverage of the debate was like watching an old folks home caucus debating legislation to reduce the number of buttons on TV remotes.
In the case of SOPA, there are obviously some people who think the pros outweigh the cons, or politicians wouldn't be pushing it. So where are the links to their perspectives so that reasonable people can decide for themselves whose points make the most sense in this case? We weren't given that opportunity here.
Objectivity in journalism does not only mean that what you state should be verifiable fact -- it also means not excluding relevant information. News is far more often slanted by choosing not to report certain facts than by distorting reality or outright fabrication. Balanced journalism trusts news consumers enough to provide them with all the facts that matter regardless of personal beliefs, which are properly presented in opinion pieces (as Gamasutra has also done on this subject).
I'm not banging on about this because I like to argue or need to "win." I'm making one clarification of my comments because I generally trust Gamasutra to be straight with me in their straight news stories and not choose sides, and because I think that didn't happen here and that erodes my trust slightly. You're free to disagree, of course.
Unfortunately a typical business response isn't to fight, it's to side with whomever they think will win. I don't know the outcome, but I do know how big business acts.
29830190 though they have heavily spun what the ESA is doing and their relationship with it: "We are members of the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), a trade organization that is working with legislators to refine the bill."