 |
|
|
| |
Gamasutra takes anti-SOPA stance
by Kris Graft [Console/PC, Social/Online, Smartphone/Tablet, Indie, Serious, Console Digital, Exclusive, Programming, Art, Audio, Design, Production, Business, Marketing]
|
|
| |
|
January 17, 2012
|
| |
Gamasutra staff will not be updating the website between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. PST on Wednesday, January 18, in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act, which despite some recent changes, still remains a very real threat to freedom on the internet.
We realize that we do provide a service that many people count on daily. But we strongly believe that ultimately, our readership, which includes many professionals in the video game industry, would be greatly damaged by SOPA.
With that in mind, it's important that as the leading industry-facing game news website, Gamasutra takes a clear stance on this issue. So we've made the tough decision to symbolically cease normal news operations, and an ad-free version of this article will take the place of the front page.
We will resume normal updates on Thursday morning. Comments on this article will remain active, and we encourage our visitors to discuss this measure.
The act is a clumsy attempt to eliminate copyright and trademark infringement stemming from foreign "rogue sites" that are deemed by the U.S. government or private corporations as havens for piracy. It would give the U.S. government and copyright holders the ability to seek court orders to block U.S. internet users from accessing sites accused of being "primarily dedicated" to copyright and trademark infringement.
Recently, the bill's author, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, made an attempt to clear up some vagaries of the bill's original language. For example, instead of targeting sites that supposedly "engage in, enable or facilitate" copyright and trademark infringement, the act now more specifically targets foreign sites that are "primarily dedicated" to copyright and trademark infringement. Last week, Rep. Smith also decided to drop the controversial Domain Name System (DNS) provision.
But those revisions are still not anywhere close to adequate. Even with those revisions, under SOPA, content rights-holders and the U.S. Attorney General have the ability to gain a court order to put supposed infringers on an internet blacklist, bypass due process, and target legitimate businesses with the threat of civil and criminal penalties. And even though "foreign sites" are now the direct target of SOPA, U.S. companies will bear a financial burden as a result of compliance and legal costs pertaining to this measure.
The bill is still all about internet censorship that's akin to the kind used in countries like Iran and China. For our non-U.S. readers who think this won't affect you, think of how much of the internet's power lies in the U.S., and the kind of precedent this could set for other governments.
SOPA is a particular threat to video game companies and their fans who partake in user-generated content, such as mods, videos and screenshots. In general, SOPA would place a chilling effect upon many ways that game companies interact with and foster their communities, and judging how the games industry has been taking its products online and worldwide for years, and positioning games as services, that's a bad thing.
So when your customers and fans are negatively affected, that also affects the business of game developers, killing fun, creativity and innovation, while hampering the industry's economic growth all at the same time. The measure is still overly broad and wouldn't actually stop piracy. It won't protect U.S. jobs, but rather put legitimate game industry businesses in the crosshairs.
Due to the vagueness of the act, experts have said that even in its current amended form, U.S. sites could become direct SOPA targets. Gamasutra currently has comments sections and blogs where users can upload content, and we're planning to expand community features. Depending on the kinds of material posted by our readers in these sections, will we be deemed a site that's "primarily dedicated" to trademark and copyright infringement? Shall we hastily delete anything that might bring down the mighty hammer of the U.S. government or some media conglomerate?
While the SOPA hearings originally slated for Wednesday have been delayed in light of Rep. Smith's revision to the act's DNS provision, Gamasutra and its staff are standing in solidarity with those in the game industry and other websites that oppose this measure.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that video games are protected speech under the First Amendment. Gamasutra supports no measure -- neither SOPA nor the similarly dangerous PIPA -- that will undoubtedly counteract any progress this industry has made towards the freedom to create and innovate within the art and business of video games.
Kris Graft
Editor-in-Chief
Gamasutra.com
[Use the Electronic Frontier Foundation's website to easily send a letter to your congressman. Click here [PDF] for the bill itself.]
|
| |
|
|
That being said, it's being done in solidarity with other major websites, and together, it will paint a pretty bleak picture of what the Internet could be like after SOPA kicks in, so it's probably worth it to some extent.
I'm damned proud to be associated with an organization that would take a stand like this.
Haters gonna hate!
But btw, that statement is from all the IGN offices. This is the original link http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1216739p1.html
thanks again!
So just because Barack plans on vetoing SOPA, doesn't mean SOPA's dead...
On topic, I applaud Gamasutra staff for what they are doing, and in their defense, even Google is doing a limited capacity anti-SOPA stance by putting a black cover on top of the Google name and creating a link that redirects to the petition page.
SOPA and PIPA are both poorly worded bills and horribly hamfisted attempts at censorship that do almost nothing to stem the tide of piracy but are aimed squarely are protecting large corporate content creators (and campaign donors) and either version will virtually ensure that the glory of a free internet is fundamentally lost.
1. Boycotts are effective when someone notices them. Gamasutra is an industry site. No one outside of the industry visits. Therefore, really - nobody out there cares. You could run a month-long boycott, and it would still make no difference. No one will even notice - except us, your daily visitors, who are already all against SOPA anyway.
2. I don't get all these "aww, I'm proud of you guys" voices. It costs Gamasutra nothing to do this (ok, ok, one day of ad revenue lost...). If the point of the boycott was so that the Gamasutra staff had the spare time to travel to Washington D.C. and protest - that would be entirely different. That would be awesome and praise-worthy. But this is just silly and pointless.
3. In the meantime, as near as I can figure out, SOPA is already dead in the water...
Whatever we call it, though, it's still completely pointless and unproductive in this case :).
Oh, well. All will be back to normal tomorrow.
People who are outside of the movie industry may still be interested in how the movie business works. They may read the hollywood reporter or variety out of curiosity.
There is a good chance that many people who are interested in the games industry will come by Gamasutra today to see what's happening with the SOPA blackouts around the industry.
It will be a powerful message to find Gamasutra itself shut down in defiance.
As our industry is full of big proponents of these bills, blacking out this site (and many others all across the internet) definitely has the potential to get some of those people's attention, especially if it gets Joe Constituent agitated enough to actually do something about it and call their reps in DC or protest in other ways that bring attention to this issue. Check out rock paper shotguns excellent coverage (once it comes back tomorrow) and you'll realize just how many companies in our industry either outright support this legislation or have given a sadly standard 'no comment' of mute compliance.
And SOPA/PIPA are definitely not dead, but their supporters are hoping more people start believing that. The supporters and legislators behind these bills are merely pulling back and making a few minor changes that they hope they can pass off later as 'improvements' once the people move on to some other distraction. They are still maintaining that the core essence of the legislation is sound policy, which is being able to pull down websites whenever an IP lawyer feels like some random clip or pic on a website is 'piracy'.
So yeah, an industry leader and representative like Gamasutra standing up and saying "NO!" is going to get my respect.
There are members of our industry that need to be shown they don't have the agreement or support of their peers and collaborators. That can only happen on industry sites.
Dead in the water for now, perhaps. Burt don't worry, when they feel nobody is paying attention, the BSA, RIAA, MPAA, and those of the ESA will be paying their usual lobbyist payments to get it back in there. Perhaps worded just slightly different, and more than likely attached to some other more immediately important bill so there's a "Gotcha" attached if you vote down the bill because of the piggy-backed SOPA/PIPA garbage legislation.
This is a fairly good summary if anyone is interested
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/how-pipa-and-sopa-violate-white-house-principles-su pporting-free-speech
Go go Gamasutra!
good for you gamasutra! i'm proud to be subscribed!
oh yeah, and tora above says - don't forget PIPA which is every bit as much (if not more) a threat to a free and open internet.
dangit, the internet needs a guardian every bit as powerful and rabid as the NRA is for their precious firearms...
we need a National Web Association. NWA.
There's similar acts getting through in Europe, which is just as bad! Belgium has already censored several sites.
It's your site, though, and I support your having the power to determine what to do with it.
also...
arab spring.
The Media, as we can see everyday will keep hush what it wants to, especially if, like in the case of the owner of News Corp, the agenda is to make it nearly impossible to be indie unless you pass through their toll booths with a nice chunk of change first.
The only reason why they have mentioned it now is because the protests and opposition is too loud already to ignore. Notice that Murdoch controls anything News Corp does and says, as I'm sure boards and other owners of other media cartels (conglomerates doesn't sum up their true controlling powers) do just as much. (It's very hard to find something that fits the "objective" category of reporting instead of "subjective.") As long as money talks and people value their jobs over their convictions (a very tough dilemma in this economy)
The media gains too much not to keep hush, or when they no longer can, try to spin the protests off as piracy lovers.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-f eds-falsely
-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.sh tml
The best way to fight piracy is to fix the service problems that cause it. If people are downloading your game to get around DRM, then get rid of the DRM. If people are downloading your game because it is not localized or available in their region, localize it and release it in their region. If people are downloading your game because it costs to much, reduce the price. If people are downloading your game because it is not available digitally, release it digitally.
Above all, you should be human and treat your customers and fans with fairness and as friends. People respond positively to that kind of treatment.
Even if you believe this legislation is a perfect attack on piracy, the collateral damage is totally unacceptable. If you insist legislation is required it has to be tightly focussed and not an invitation to abuse. Because being human should have taught you, where abuse is possible it's also inevitable - applies equally to piracy and this ludicrous excuse for a law.
Meanwhile, I'll carry on running pirate builds of many of my purchased games *because they deliver a better product*.
I'm not convinced that currently existing laws are inadequate to fight piracy. And if they do need to be improved, then they need to be improved in a way that respects the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair and open trial. And they also need to be constructed in a way that keeps lobbying groups out of the enforcement process.
also, just look up "purpose of copyright" for additional voices on the topic.
RIAA bitches about piracy - production of music is NOT BECOMING LESS.
MPAA bitches about piracy - production of movies in NOT BECOMING LESS.
ESA and BSA bitch about piracy - production of software is NOT BECOMING LESS.
AND
there's VERY good reason to believe that all this copyright/patent crap is in fact stifling innovation IN AND OF ITSELF and you need look no further than all the celphone and tech companies holding arsenals of patents and paying legions of lawyers to continuously sue each other in an oroboros of litigation. does that really HELP INNOVATION?
jeez, imagine where technology and society would be if we were such damn patent whores from first principles... if THE WHEEL was patented... or FIRE was patented... or LANGUAGE was patented...
would we as a civilization be more ahead or less than where we are now if such an IP BOGARTING regime existed from day one?
--------------------------
people ARE making money creating content. NOW. in this day and age. it's possible. and if you need proof, any company or individual that moans about it should just STFU and GET OUT OF THE WAY... because standing right behind them is a LEGION of people waiting to get to bat who know they can make it work.
ultimately - THAT is the answer.
make money because you can. if you can't, STFU and GET OUT. you will not be missed. you and your innovations will be replaced INSTANTLY by a 19 year old who can do it better, faster, cheaper and STILL MAKE MONEY.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/stand-together-the-gaming-community-vs-sopa
-and-pipa
I know there are lots of game journalists who are covering E3 because it is a hugely important part of game advertising. The request here is simply "Don't". Vote with your feet as it were.
A hard stance would be to deny advertisements of any sort from any organization supporting SOPA. Taking a day off from updating a site relatively few people on the Internet visit is a non-sacrifice on the part of Gamasutra.
-and-pipa
;)
If you just happen to be at the same place a photo was taken, in the exact, or near exact same conditions, camera angle, etc. someone is going to cry "stolen" and it will be hard to prove that you didn't, even if you never knew the existence of the other photo.
Granted, it's a poorly written bill. I don't want to see it passed in its current form. But it does try to address a real problem, and the thing that bugs me is that opposition to the bill -- such as Kris' article above -- never proposes any kind of alternative solution.
As with the whole ratings issue, ultimately the solution should come from the private sector. But the private sector has been achingly silent on the issue.
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'd like to see: Youtube self-regulates copyright infringement through content search and advertising revenue. It also provides copyright holders a means to flag infringing content for review. Yet if you do a simple Google search for one of my games, you get any number of hits on the first page or two that take you directly to pirate sites where users can (for Android apps) just click a link and download the game for free. I suspect many users who do so don't even know they're pirating the game. And yet Google provides no means for me to flag a link for review. I can, however, flag content as "inappropriate" -- why is that? Boobs bad but pirated software OK?
Maybe it isn't a perfect solution, but it's an example of the kind of thing I'd like to see companies like Google talking about, instead of just putting a stupid black bar over their logo.
So to all o' youse who are applauding the blackout today: Why not take advantage of the browsing downtime and spend a little brain power thinking up real solutions? If you want a vibrant independent game developer community, you need to be concerned not only about free speech, but also about the ability of said independent developers to turn a profit.
If you would like a bit of a primer on the issue, you can start here:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/
These are stories of a number of businesses and artists that are succeeding despite piracy. They have looked piracy in the eyes and said "You have no power over me." And they have succeeded.
To be more specific:
http://blog.bandcamp.com/2012/01/03/cheaper-than-free/
Bandcamp has taken to using the search terms of those looking for free stuff and have turned those people into paying customers. They do so by being honest, open and human. They do so by treating customers as friends rather than enemies.
A little more close to home we have Valve that has turned the pirate haven of Russia into its highest grossing European country.
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/experiments-video-game-economics-valves- gabe-newell
The issue of piracy is almost always a service issue. When people who want your product can't get it when and how they want it, they will often resort to alternative means to get it. The goal is to use what you learn about people who pirate your games to better serve them and turn them into paying customers.
You cannot do this if you attack them. That is why DRM fails. That is why region restrictions fail. That is why laws like SOPA/PIPA fail. People don't like to be treated as criminals. They want to be treated as a friend.
As for why SOPA is bad for independent game developers, Yesterday Gamasutra had a good article about why SOPA would be bad for them. To be more specific, many independent game developers get their start by making clones of existing games or by parodying or satirizing them. Under SOPA, any website that hosts distributes or links to those games would be targeted. This means less exposure for those independent game developers. Additionally, more games today are allowing for user generated content. If that content ends up infringing on someone's copyright or trademark, the game and its servers could be targeted. There are also problems with patents and copyright in software. Patent and copyright violations would be targets of SOPA as well. All this adds a tremendous burden on developers that do not have the means to fight the accusations even if they are innocent let alone guilty.
Such a law would have even more damaging capabilities as well. Most indie games are discovered through the use of Social media. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Imgur, Flicker etc, all these sites will be hit with massive compliancy costs and further liability burdens. If SOPA had been in effect 5 years ago, none of these sites would be in existence today. If that were the case, there would be no Minecraft or Mojang Studios. We wouldn't have Bastion or The Binding of Isaac or Super Meat Boy. Why? Because all these games relied on those social media sites to spread the word. Why would we want to harm that ability for future game developers?
That is the problem with SOPA. Those are the solutions.
That said, there is also the idea of knowing that your apps will be pirated and using that in part of your monetization plans by selling ads through a number of services (incidentally, those services are at risk with SOPA). Certainly one possible idea is to go the same route as flashgamelicence.com and sell a link to a website in the opening screen. Then, even if the app is pirated you still get the ad revenue from the advertiser and the advertiser still gets the placement.
Finally, bringing this back around to SOPA and your situation: You probably wouldn't have the legal resources to actually pursue action against websites once you actually found them. Even if you did, would it be worth your time and expense? It is the same reason why you aren't buying much advertisement for your applications, the conversion rate is too small for such an inexpensive item to hope to make its money back (maybe start up cost too). So, unfortunately, SOPA does nothing for small start up developers like you (and me).
"The current legal option you have available to you is to directly sue the infringing person. Then, there is a legal process by which you can reclaim damages."
Actually, Matt can also submit DMCA notices which do not require a lawsuit and only a few minutes of work. If he's not doing that SOPA is pretty useless, since I imagine he wouldn't submit SOPA notices either. (Or maybe he would - after all, in SOPA takedown notices, you can lie to more people with fewer repercussions.)
Then again I take your point that there are people who don't have credit cards, or for some reason are willing to pay for product but unwilling to do it through an official App Store. I like the Bandcamp model, and I've always been a fan of "pay what you want" campaigns like Radiohead did with In Rainbows. So maybe we'll try something like that and see how it goes.
For the record, I don't lose a lot of sleep over this issue. My feeling is that people who want to pay will pay, and people who don't won't. I don't believe every pirated game is a lost sale -- many of them, most of them probably would not have paid for the game anyway. And probably some of them convert to paying customers, after they've played and enjoyed the game for free.
As I said above, I am not in favor of the government stepping in and trying to control the issue, especially with something as poorly conceived as SOPA. What I am in favor of is mainstream, primary access point service providers like Google doing a little something more than nothing.
How are the current deregulated actions taken independently by sites such as google, youtube, (insert well known forum here) or even our own gamasutra different and better than what SOPA and PIPA put forth?
Edit: To clarify, I suppose what I'm saying is I get a bad feeling about SOPA and PIPA, but I'm not sure why, I'm not sure whether to ignore it, and I'm not sure of the cause of the bad feeling; if it's a kneejerk reaction to the US government taking international trade into its own hands, I'm definitely willing to dismiss my hesitation, but if there's legitimately no effective difference between the current and proposed situations, why pay attention to the bad feeling at all? Am I making any sense? I just need a bit of clarification on the difference between the current and proposed situations.
There is a huge difference between the actions of a business (eg Google, Facebook, Gamasutra) and the actions of the government. Primarily, the Government is bound by the Constitution and its protections of the Free Speech rights of its citizens. When the government regulates speech in any way, that violates that right.
Under SOPA, the government would have the ability to block an entire website worth of speech over only a few infringing links. This is a huge violation.
Now if Google refused to show your website in its search results (which it has done numerous times in the past) it has not violated your rights because 1) your site is still available. 2) there are alternative ways for people to find your website.
Next we have the problem of how SOPA came into being. SOPA is an example of what those in political circles call "regulatory capture" or "crony capitalism". What these mean is that certain special interests lobby the government for laws that protect those businesses from competition. In this case, the legacy movie and music industries are trying to get laws passed that will protect their business models from having to adapt and compete in a fair and open internet. Under SOPA sites like Youtube, Flicker, Bandcamp, Soundcloud etc will be burdened with increased compliancy costs and liability issues. The restrictions placed on sites under SOPA are enough to kill most small sites and enough to embroil larger sites in enough burden that they become useless for what they should be for.
To get a better understanding of what life will be like under SOPA, we only need to look at recent history and abuse under current law.
For example we have a popular hip hop blog that had its domain seized by ICE and was denied due process for a full year before being quietly given its domain back:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-f eds-falsely
-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.sh tml
We also have a video site, much like YouTube that was sued for infringement, was found not guilty by the courts but still went out of business because legal costs were far too great:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/11021717143/veoh-still-perf ectly-legal
-also-still-dead-due-to-bogus-copyright-lawsuit.shtml
The point is that the abuse possible under SOPA is bad that no law like it should exist. We have anti-trust laws to deal with businesses that abuse power, but when those powers are given to those businesses by the government, there is little recourse. SOPA itself was designed to protect the accuser at the expense of the accusee. That is bad. That is why SOPA should be stopped.
From what I understand, they need offer no evidence of said piracy at the time they force a website down and force advertiser revenues shut off. This could easily be abused by a large company to permanently squeeze an independent developer out of business while they take their time truly investigating the claims. And insult to injury, to repercussions for crying wolf when there was no wolf, other than perhaps one less company that didn't want to play ball by the large company's stacked rules.
Don't let the honeyed words of the media fool you into believing it isn't about more than piracy and your failure to support their self-serving legislation is just you saying that you are for piracy at any cost.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/stand-together-the-gaming-community-vs-sopa
-and-pipa
opa-pipa/?ci=56582
Go Daddy has changed their stance. They are now openly against SOPA and PIPA.
Bravo!
P.S.: For some reason, there's a space between the "c" and the "y", so watch out for that when using the link.
Isn't this just saying that, "SOPA is MORE important than the other stories we usually cover so we are going to make the site all about this today?"
Wouldn't a complete block on the website, with a stamp saying "Shut down by SOPA", where we couldn't read details about the story and carry on a conversation about it, be more in line with what is being attempted here?
I'm happy it leans more towards the goal of informing people than the goal of not being operable. Plus Gamasutra is about many articles, blogs, jobs, etc... and not just one single article, so it is still blocking the content itself.
I don't even live anywhere near the U.S., and I still feel this legislation could affect me. It's not only harmful to the Internet and free speech in general, but also a usurpation of authority that does not belong to the U.S. government (or any specific government, for that matter). I'm glad to see Gamasutra is being active about this issue.
"Two more co-sponsors of anti-piracy legislation in Congress backed away from legislation on Wednesday, as protests ramped up both online and in the streets.
Senators Marco Rubio (R-. Fla), Jon Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Roy Blunt (R-Miss.) backed away from the Senate bill, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) on Wednesday. "
Where's the boycott of all those game companies! Capcom, Epic, Eidos, Disney, Konami, Microsoft, Namco, NVidia, Sega, Sony, Square Enix, Take-Two, Tecmo, THQ, Ubisoft, Warner. They are all SOPA/PIPA supporters.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/esa-members-and-sopa-where-they-stand /
So let's start there. Some that you listed as supporting do not actually support SOPA/PIPA.
As far as I know no one has left the ESA over this yet. So it's good that, say, Epic and 38 are "against" SOPA on their Facebook page or their forum posts. But they're still ESA members, which means they're still giving money to a lobbying organization that is a major SOPA backer - I think possibly the only SOPA backer in the tech industry. And they're still going to E3, and the ESA owns E3.
Materially, most of the companies RPS lists as "against" it are still supporting it.
The ESA itself has yet to back down even to a position of neutrality, or make a statement like "we are re-evaluating our position based on member feedback." And to actually be against SOPA, you need to take a stronger stance than even that.
I completely agree. I think that any person or business that supports an organization that doesn't have its best interests in mind is a bad thing. We could do well with a lot of businesses leaving the ESA over this issue.
Meanwhile... back to video games, right? They're what we're fighting for, after all.