Current Actions

(No Title)
1984 Could Be Here Now

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is currently being debated by the House of Representatives and focuses on the very real issues of cyber threats and the need for greater cyber security. The legislation amends and updates the National Security Act of 1947, which doesn’t contain provisions regarding cyber crime. While this law absolutely needs to be updated, this legislation is the latest example of Congress debating technology issues, while not understanding the full implications of the legislation they’re trying to pass.

CISPA would have technology companies, like video game systems, internet service providers (ISPs) and more share your use of technology with the Government under the guise of cyber security. It’s George Orwell’s classic book 1984 right here, right now.

Here are the problems with the legislation as it stands:
- The description of what can be shared is rather vague. So it could include your browsing history, searches and even what games you play.
- There aren’t any restrictions on the recipients who can receive and use that information. If this is about cyber-security, it should only be used for that.
- Private communications will be flowing from the private sector to the NSA. Yes, really.
- It broadens spying organizations’ powers with little transparency and limited public oversight.
- There are vague countermeasures included that allow “cyber security systems” to obtain information in order to protect networks.
- Websites that publish whistleblower documents could be shut down, censoring speech and the web.
This is the government snooping into your use of the internet and technology with the help of corporations without the usual judicial process and the protections we’re guaranteed by the US Constitution. We can’t see any reason the Government needs to know how much Mass Effect you play, the maps you enjoy in Call of Duty or how many people are in your World of Warcraft Guild... Can you?
(No Title)
Tell Congress That There's No Link Between Video Games and Real Life Violence

Rep. Joe Baca (D CA-43), along with Rep. Frank Wolf (R VA-10) as co-sponsor, thinks its 2009 again and have introduced H.R. 4204, “The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2012.” This bill, if passed, would require a warning label be affixed to all games rated E (for Everyone) or up by the ESRB, regardless of the content descriptors. The warning would read: `WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.' The ECA needs your help to make sure this bill does not become law.

Congress is simply misinformed on this issue. While Congressman Baca has cited “scientific studies,” the vast majority of studies show that there is no proven causal link between violent video games and negatively aggressive behavior. In fact, several studies suggest that playing video games can be helpful to young people, such as this study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Further, the bill requires the label on games that are not rated E or above for violence, which could confuse parents and undermine the ESRB, which according to the FTC is the most enforced media retail system.

“The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2012” is an unconstitutional restraint on speech that would harm consumers and parents alike. Please join with the ECA. Let your Representatives know that you want them to let the industry and parents continue to use a system that works, and have Congress stay focused on the real problems facing our nation.

Fill in your zip code below, read the letter, then click the Send This Message button and your letter will be emailed to your member of Congress.
(No Title)
Tell the Connecticut Senate to not tax our hobby!

Connecticut gamers, take a moment to tell your representative not to tax our hobby! Senate Bill 400 would implement a tax on digital downloads and would make it more expensive to enjoy video games. Let the Connecticut legislature know that this is not the right way to aid an economic recovery, and not the way to represent their constituents. Please read the letter below, plug in your contact information to the right, and feel free to add you own thoughts to show your opposition to SB 400.
(No Title)
Find Out how EULAs Affect You Under State Law

Recently, video game publishers have begun updating their End User License Agreements (EULAs) for operating their games and game systems with mandatory arbitration clauses. The EULA is that notice that requires you to click "I agree" before you can use the game, or continue using it.

They have also increasingly been adding restrictive digital rights management (DRM) software and technologies that may prevent you from renting or selling your games. In addition, they don't disclose that the EULA and DRM are present – so you'd have to buy the game and open the box before you'd know, and then you can't return the game to the store, as a result.

These changes are changing the deal. You may think that you're buying and owning a game, when, in fact, you're buying a license to just use it – and only in the ways that the publisher says.

Is all of this legal? Does anyone review these EULAs from the consumer's perspective? The answer is that it depends on your individual state's laws and regulations. We're asking you to write your state officials to find out how these changes affect you.
(No Title)
Using Jailbroken Electronics is NOT a Crime

We have turned into a society of remixes and tinkerers. Whether it’s making content on our own, or changing content and “mixing” it with content someone else has created, we take what others have created and personalize it.

C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, is currently being debated in Canada. It has been compared to the US’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA). While C-11 isn’t quite as draconian as those two, there are sections that are concerning, especially when it comes to how it deals with digital protections and “jailbreaking” electronics.

The legislation in section 41 makes it illegal to circumvent “technological protection measures.” This could be anything from jailbreaking your phone to downloading a patch so that you can play a video game. Being able to modify programs, to use programs on homebrew systems, and to fix incompatible digital protection measures would not be allowed any more. This could stifle innovation.

Stand with the Entertainment Consumers Association to oppose this section of C-11.
(No Title)
The House of Representatives announced over the weekend that they‘re reevaluating the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and would not move forward without consensus. However, over in the Senate, Majority Leader Reid has a vote still scheduled for their version of the legislation, the Protect IP Act (PIPA).

The House Members have listened to their constituents and are reevaluating SOPA. We’re hoping the Senate will do the same. Take a moment to email your Senators and let them know they shouldn’t support PIPA.

There's a few actions to do here and if you complete all three, something awesome awaits at the end.
(No Title)
Don’t Let Congress Censor the Internet

Some of the worst legislation we’ve ever seen when it comes to digital rights has been put before Congress this session. Three pieces of legislation, H.R. 3261 in the House of Representatives and S. 968 and S. 978 in the Senate, would cripple the internet by stripping your due process rights and making everyday users wary that the next thing you post might get you sued or thrown in jail. Here’s what the legislation does:
- It strips current laws by now making internet companies, which used to be immune, liable for their users’ communications. This means that Facebook, Youtube, Wordpress, Google and more are now on the hook for what you post.
- It gives the US Attorney General, with court order, the power to seize websites that possibly infringe or partially infringe copyright. There would be no due process and no chance to defend yourself before the seizure. The mere accusation can get a website taken away.
- It violates Net Neutrality by ordering internet providers, advertising companies and payment systems to block accused websites with technology that just doesn’t exist.
- It threatens users by imposing fines or jail time for posting even derivatives of copywrited work(s). A video of your karaoke, playing the piano, video game speed trial would now all be punishable if a copyright holder decides to enforce it.
We’ve already seen I.C.E. overreact when seizing websites and copyright holders suing over the most minor infractions. This legislation is vague, overly broad and under inclusive, violates due process, there are already existing laws on this subject and this creates a chilling effect on free speech by creating black lists and making everyday users think twice about what we post.

Both S. 968 and H.R. 3261 have been shelved, for now, in both the House of Representatives and Senate. The issues they attempt to solve are still being debated. Take action now and let your Member of Congress and your Senators know you don't support the legislation and neither should they.
(No Title)
Big Brother is Watching Your Second Hand Sales

A proposed Madison city ordinance to catch addicts and crooks attempting to sell stolen items to secondhand stores and pawn shops would also lead to an overarching reach into the privacy of innocent individuals.

The ordinance, which will be considered in October, would require a photo and other personal information about anyone who sold an item to a business to be kept on hand by businesses for six months. There are so many things disturbing about this.

There are serious civil liberties issues, as the government would be able to see what video games and movies we use and sell. Further, there is no provision insuring that the collected information will not be shared with third-parties.

While it’s understandable that the police and government want to do everything they can to prevent the selling of stolen goods, those steps should be done without trampling on our civil rights and privacy.
(No Title)
Don't Make Me a Criminal For Playing Video Games

Bill S. 978 has recently been introduced before the United States Senate. The legislation, if passed, would impose stricter copyright laws and penalties when it comes to streaming, playing, or reproducing copyrighted material. While we believe in the rights of copyright holders, this legislation’s broad language would make criminals out of millions of Americans.

People could face prison for up to 5 years if they:
1. 1) Make or offer 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
2. 2) If the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, could exceed $2,500; or
3. 3) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000
In plain terms this means that if you stream your game play to show your friends and it’s viewed by 1 or more friends ten times or less, you could go to jail for up to five years. Yeah, really.

Everyone is at risk. The vagueness regarding value leaves it to copyright holders to determine the possible costs to them. If they want to prosecute through that loophole, they can. A child playing piano of their favorite performer on YouTube, a video of a child dancing to their favorite songs and video game players showing off walk-throughs, speed trials and live streaming their games are all examples of items that’d be prosecutable under this legislation.

There are already strong laws on the books for copyright holders to protect their intellectual property. We don’t need this draconian measure that’d make criminals out of millions Americans who just want to share their enjoyment of their favorite entertainment.
(No Title)
Protect Your Online Rights!

S. 968, the Protect IP Act of 2011, would take the already strict laws regarding intellectual property and copyright and make them more onerous by causing website owners to be careful about not just what they post, but also what they link to. The released draft of the legislation makes it effectively illegal to link to any website that is, or might be, accused of being “dedicated to infringing purposes.”

The language in the bill refers to “information location tool[s],” which, as defined, can mean any directory, index, reference, pointer or hypertext link. As content creators, we’d have to be fully aware of what and who we’re linking our website, tweet or status updating to, and worry that if any website we linked to is accused of being used for “infringing purposes,” we can be held liable, even if we haven’t posted or hosted the offending material ourselves. Even without reproducing the work, preparing derivative works, distributing the works, performing the works or displaying the work, other website owners can be held liable for just linking to the accused real offenders.

We’ve already seen clamp downs and seizures of websites without due process, and at least one case of the above. If passed, this legislation will have a chilling effect on the simple act of posting any link online. Write your Senator today and tell them to not support S. 968.
(No Title)
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wants to hear your thoughts on usage based billing!

Last week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its intent to review the billing practices across the telecommunications industry that affect residential consumers of smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs), found here. Without hearing input from Canadian gamers and general users of the Internet, the CRTC could authorize ISPs to charge you more per month for Internet services, depending on your Internet usage, and it may not be as fast, or as reliable, as your current service!

Not only could increased prices affect your online game play, but it could also affect how you choose to browse the Internet you might do on your computer at home. Such long term repercussions of these changes could also stifle Canadian technological innovation, or social progress. Gamers, and Internet browsers, it’s time for your voice to be heard!
(No Title)

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission wants to hear your thoughts on usage based billing!

Last week, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced its intent to review the billing practices across the telecommunications industry that affect residential consumers of smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs), found here. Without hearing input from Canadian gamers and general users of the Internet, the CRTC could authorize ISPs to charge you more per month for Internet services, depending on your Internet usage, and it may not be as fast, or as reliable, as your current service!

Not only could increased prices affect your online game play, but it could also affect how you choose to browse the Internet you might do on your computer at home. Such long term repercussions of these changes could also stifle Canadian technological innovation, or social progress. Gamers, and Internet browsers, it’s time for your voice to be heard!
(No Title)

Tell Congress to Support Net Neutrality

On February 16, the House of Representatives will meet with the FCC to discuss its recently implemented rules on Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is the principle that prevents discrimination of content online, from slowing down your connection to certain sites or services to outright blocking your access to others.

While the rules the FCC implemented were not perfect, those in the House are putting together a vote to not only overturn those rules but also prevent the FCC from ever making any other rules regarding Net Neutrality in the future.

While these initial rules aren’t perfect, they do have some protection for consumers. Without Net Neutrality our ability to play video games online, visit the sites we want or use the services we choose could be endangered.

Write your Congressman below and tell them you support Net Neutrality.
(No Title)

Tell Congress That There's No Link Between Video Games and Real Life Violence

Rep. Joe Baca (D CA-43), along with Rep. Frank Wolf (R VA-10) as co-sponsor, thinks its 2009 again and is introducing “The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2011.” This bill, if passed, would require a warning label be affixed to all games rated T or up by the ESRB, regardless of the content descriptors. The warning would read: `WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.' The ECA needs your help to make sure this bill does not become law.

Congress is simply misinformed on this issue. While Congressman Baca cites “scientific studies,” the vast majority of studies show that there is no proven causal link between violent video games and negatively aggressive behavior. In fact, several studies suggest that playing video games can be helpful to young people, such as this study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Further, the bill requires the label on games that are not rated T or above for violence, which could confuse parents and undermine the ESRB, which according to the FTC is the most enforced media retail system.

“The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2011” is an unconstitutional restraint on speech that would harm consumers and parents alike. Please join with the ECA. Let your Representatives know that you want them to let the industry and parents continue to use a system that works, and have Congress stay focused on the real problems facing our nation.

Simply read the letter below, fill in the form to the right, then click the Send This Message button and your letter will be emailed to your member of Congress.
(No Title)

Tell the FCC To Give Us the Net Neutrality We Were Promised

On December 21, the FCC will meet and it’s reported that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will outline his Net Neutrality proposal with a vote before the end of the year. Instead of the preservation of a neutral internet where traffic is treated equally, we have heard that the proposal would:

* Require wired broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal content, applications, and services with the flexibility to manage network congestion and spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management approach.

* Allow broadband providers to experiment with dedicated networks to route traffic from specialized services like smart grids and home security systems as long as they don't hurt the public internet.

* Permit tiered pricing.

This is not a “neutral internet” and fails for the following reasons:

* It exempts wireless – wireless carriers might not be able to “block” content, but under this proposal they would be able to “discriminate.”

* Expect paid priority and toll roads - Under these rules the toll roads demanded by Comcast to Netflix would be legal and standard practice. Internet Service Providers would be free to create bumps in the road to access content or even degrade a service to the point it’s not usable, unless they pay up.

* The enforcement and definition of “lawful content” is unclear – torrent and peer-to-peer sites have a place in disseminating information quickly and easily. Unfortunately it is used for piracy as well. Will the technology be thrown out with the bathwater?

This is changing the definition of Net Neutrality and yet declaring ”mission accomplished.”

The Net Neutral principle was stated as a goal of President Obama’s upon his election. Net Neutrality benefits us consumers and we need to speak up to make sure that we get the law of the land we were promised. Write to the FCC today!
(No Title)

Tell the Senate to Allow Camera Coverage in the Supreme Court

The video game industry has just experienced its first major case before the United States Supreme Court, Schwarzenegger v. EMA. While transcripts, audio and news coverage gave us insight into what went on before the Court, video cameras were not allowed.

That’s why we’re asking the Senate to pass S. 446, which would allow cameras into the Supreme Court proceedings, unless doing so would violate the due process of one of the parties. The bill has received strong bipartisan support. We believe in transparency and accountability and that we should be able to watch a proceeding at the Supreme Court just like any other hearing.
(No Title)

A Balance of Liberties for Consumers' and Creators' Rights

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force is looking for input as to how they should proceed when it comes to protecting intellectual property. They have asked for input from the public and comments are due by November 19, 2010.

This is your opportunity to tell the Internet Policy Task Force your thoughts on intellectual property protection and directly influence policy and legislation. They want to hear from you. Take advantage and let them know your thoughts and concerns.
(No Title)

Support Net Neutrality

Recently, Google and Verizon announced their joint principles when it comes to network neutrality. It’s clear that their seven principles would in fact create a tiered internet, further dividing the haves and the have-nots, and seriously hurting American consumers’ rights. While their two main goals are admirable, their customers should choose what content, applications, and devices they use.

Their fifth principle would create an a-la-cart internet, akin to cable television, which would “allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today.” While they claim they don’t want this to be an “out” and to circumvent other rules, this would be allowing the foxes to guard the chicken coop. Unfortunately, we would quickly see premium game services that you’d have to pay extra for, and would create walled gardens of services.

Their sixth principle also differentiates between wired and wireless services. As you probably know, wireless broadband is the future of internet services. In fact this principle says that they encourage the FCC to “not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless” services. Unfortunately, this is backwards in that the lack of interference from ISP providers has allowed innovation online and should continue in the wireless market. They want free rein to accelerate pricing in the entire internet market as ISPs move more into wifi technologies.

In the end, their seven principles, along with recent closed door meetings between telecommunication lobbyists and the FCC, are disturbing and could easily result in our consumer rights being diminished.

Net Neutrality affects your online gaming experience. Speak out today and tell the FCC to take a stand and enshrine it to protect all consumers.
(No Title)

Support Net Neutrality

The FCC is looking for input as to how they should proceed when it comes to implementing Net Neutrality and in their National Broadband Plan. They have proposed their “Third Way.” Recently, they have taken closed door meetings with telecommunication lobbyists and rumors of a compromise persist. We need to speak up and make sure the FCC stands with consumers. The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) advocates for network neutrality, which would ensure that gamers are free to go where they want, do what they like, and connect with whom they choose online.

This is your opportunity to tell your FCC that you support network neutrality. With issues like bandwidth caps and tiered pricing on the table, the ECA urges you to make your voice heard.
(No Title)

Support HB 1973 in North Carolina

North Carolina gamers, it is time to tell your state representatives to support the economic turn-around in your state by supporting tax credits for interactive digital businesses. Tell them to support HB 1973 which will help attract new business to the state, just as it did when Insomniac Studios decided to move to the state with a secondary studio! This bill will mean new jobs and opportunities to the people of North Carolina, so let your voice be heard!

Please read the letter below, fill in the form to the right, then click the Send This Message button and your letter will be emailed to your elected representative.
(No Title)

Gamers: Now is the time to stand up and be counted!

The Supreme Court of the United States heard the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Brown v. EMA on Tuesday, November 2nd. That means that this year, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are,and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.

For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.

It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.

Over last summer, we drafted and formally submitted our amicus brief, which was included with the other official court documents related to the case. Separately, we attached a petition signed by you, the American public, which – by its very existence – publicly defined who the consumers of interactive entertainment are and why we care enough about the issue to take the time to make the effort to speak up and make our voices heard. The petition established an authoritative collective position which cannot be redefined by detractors nor co-opted by others. And it enshrines each and every signatory’s participation in the court documents and in the U.S. National Archives’ official records related to the case.

If you’re an American gamer, and you care about gaming and your rights, stand up and be counted; sign the petition today!

THE GAMER PETITION:
(No Title)

Obama's IP Czar Wants to Hear From You!

Victoria Espinel, the newly appointed Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (otherwise known as the U.S. “IP Czar”) under the Obama Administration, recently addressed the American public, encouraging people to speak out on the state of U.S. copyright and trademark enforcement laws and how best to go about protecting intellectual property and content abroad.

Historically, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has welcomed commentary like this only from industry insiders through annual Special 301 reports that are filed by industries and their representative trade groups. Various companies and their representatives, including the entertainment industries, have long used the Special 301 reports to comment on their particular grievances regarding inadequate copyright enforcement laws in countries such as Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, Brazil, Israel, and other nations around the world. These trade groups hope that their complaints will be followed up by sanctions by the U.S. government against the other countries until remedies are in place in those “watch list” nations that meet U.S. legal and private sector standards.

In reality, it is widely known that the USTR receives these Special 301 reports from industry representatives with some doubt and reservation, as the data supporting the allegations of lax copyright enforcement measures is believed to be exaggerated, crafted to support the agendas of the rights holders to secure more profits from nations where piracy and counterfeiting is pervasive. For example, Ars Technica produced a report in 2008 on the inaccurate - or even fabricated - statistics that content industries filed in their Special 301 reports to the USTR.

This year, to the credit of the new IP Czar, the USTR is now asking for legitimate input from rights holders, industry representatives, and the public. This time they’re also demanding supporting documentation for each of the grievances that rights holders may claim. One might argue that this is an acknowledgement by the USTR of the biased information that they’ve been receiving in years past, and aim to change their procedures.

What does this mean for consumers? In short, this is good news. Why? Because now when governments sit down to discuss counterfeiting, piracy and potential solutions, they’ll be using accurate data, which will potentially limit the grounds that they will cover to amend their legislation, thereby continuing to potentially maximize the freedoms that consumers have had in their respective jurisdictions.

As the Entertainment Consumers Association continues to make gamers and consumers aware of developing and changing legislation, we also aim to empower you to make your voice heard. We invite you to make your thoughts known, by sending the letter below!

Share on Facebook.
(No Title)

Tell the Colorado House to not tax our hobby!

Colorado gamers, take a moment to tell your representative not to tax our hobby! H.B. 1192 would implement a tax on digital downloads and would make it more expensive to enjoy video games. Let the Colorado legislature know that this is not the right way to aid an economic recovery, and not the way to represent their constituents. Please read the letter below, plug in your contact information to the right, and feel free to add you own thoughts to show your opposition to H.B. 1192

Share on Facebook.
(No Title)
this is a test
(No Title)

Tell the Rhode Island Senate to stand up for free speech!

Rhode Island gamers, it’s time to let your voices be heard. Tell your State Senator to oppose S.B. 2156. This bill attempts to criminalize video game sales and will result in chilling speech in video games. Nine similar bills have already been defeated and have cost those states over $2 million dollars to defend. Let your State Senator know that Rhode Island has more pressing matters than criminalizing our hobby! Please read the letter below, plug in your conact information to the right, and feel free to add you own thoughts to show your opposition to S.B. 2156.

Share on Facebook.
(No Title)
(No Title)
The New York (NY) legislature is presently contemplating a bill that would restrict the sale of video games people under the age of 18. Parenting should be done by parents, not the government. And as we know, restricting video games based on violent content violates the First Amendment.

By raising our voices in opposition, gamers can stop this bill in committee. Right now, the NY Consumer Affairs & Protection Committees are deciding whether or not to kill the bill in committee. Our letters will help convince them to stop the NY violent video game bill.

We all need to act now!
Simply read the letter below, fill in the form to the right, then click the Send This Message button and your letter will be emailed to the NY Consumer Affairs & Protection Committee members.

Current Actions

Obama's IP Czar Wants to Hear From You!