ESA spent a million on SOPA support...

[Jagos]

Link (http://kotaku.com/5881742/the-video-game-industrys-lobbyists-spent-1000000-pushing-for-sopa-and-other-issues-last-fall)

The document lists lobbying about SOPA and PIPA among the group's causes that they spent $1,082,167.00 on between October 1 and December 31. (That's basically what they spend every three months.) They also lobbied about tax policy, immigration and other issues tied to the business of making video games.

So... ESA spend $1 million on SOPA, and also included money for domain seizures which may be coming up rather soon. As of now, there are over 660 domains seized by ICE through prior restraint and no one is talking about it.

Dunno about you guys, but any companies with the ESA are beyond assholes.

[Ryong]

Man, Penny Arcade explained it very well. (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/20)

[Aerozord]

Dunno about you guys, but any companies with the ESA are beyond assholes.

Thats most major companies in the US, even ones that individually did not support it. ESA represents gaming interests, they themselves are not these companies.

[Marc v4.0]

Those companies support the ESA with dues and depend on it to look after their greater interests.

I'm sorry that there seems to be some sort of disconnect for you in dealing with these concepts, but that means the individual companies ARE supporting SOPA by supporting the ESA, while giving lip-service to their customers that they don't support it.


EDIT:

I mean, did you even see Ryongs post? Did you read that comic? Did you take in the concept of saying one thing but doing the opposite and reach the honest conclusion that it isn't lying? Unethical, maybe?

No?

Ok.

[Osterbaum]

[...]the individual companies ARE supporting SOPA by supporting the ESA[...]
Yeah, did any of the individual companies even come out saying that they DIDN'T support the ESA's position? And I'm not talking about just withdrawing the mention of your company's name from a list.

[Jagos]

Yeah, did any of the individual companies even come out saying that they DIDN'T support the ESA's position? And I'm not talking about just withdrawing the mention of your company's name from a list.

http://www.leagueforgamers.org/2012/01/21/so-who-are-the-esas-members/

The better suggestion? Get OUT of the ESA...

[Marc v4.0]

~Lip-service~

[Aerozord]

Yeah, did any of the individual companies even come out saying that they DIDN'T support the ESA's position? And I'm not talking about just withdrawing the mention of your company's name from a list.

I dont even know any more everything I have read about it is full of so many turn arounds, double talk, and attempts to cover themselves no matter where things fell that be the end of it I have no clue where people landed.

However I do agree that ESA shouldn't have supported it. While I can understand why ESA itself would assume so, these are lawyers and lobbyists not game designers and engineers, its individual member groups should have understood why it was bad and ESA knowing how they felt changed its position.

But if the individual companies supported it then ESA actually did what it was supposed to, defend the position its members represent. That would put me in an odd position. I mean I love my AAA games, not gonna stop playing them. Not the most noble thing to do I admit but being realistic.

Besides ESA did defend gaming when its first amendment rights came under fire and I liked that

[Ramary]

Besides ESA did defend gaming when its first amendment rights came under fire and I liked that


Less kids buying games=less DOSH.

They did not do it out of an urge to defend freedom.

[Aerozord]

Less kids buying games=less DOSH.

They did not do it out of an urge to defend freedom.

If you think thats what the trial was really about, whether or not a kid can buy a game, you dont understand US legal system. The supreme court only handles cases involving constitutional rights. If it failed it would have meant that video games were not granted first amendment rights and allowed law makers alot of control over the industry.

[Jagos]

If you think thats what the trial was really about, whether or not a kid can buy a game, you dont understand US legal system. The supreme court only handles cases involving constitutional rights. If it failed it would have meant that video games were not granted first amendment rights and allowed law makers alot of control over the industry.

Then why did they support SOPA?

[Amake]

Then why did they support SOPA?
I think the more relevant question is, wouldn't games not being protected by the first amendment lead to less leeway for designers to make games freely which would lead to less people buying games, in other words exactly what Ramary said?