ECA Q&A - (non-member)

[Hal Halpin]

This thread is intended for space for non-ECA member-related Q&As. ECA members should log-in and visit the ECA Member threads for more detailed/proprietary information.

[Hal Halpin]

The following is a very thoughtful email that I received from a prospective member, which I thought prudent to share (full name and email withheld):

-Hal.


________________________________________
From: Hal Halpin
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:22 PM
To: 'WITHHELD'
Subject: RE: Requesting Clarification on ECA's Positions

Hi Josh,

Thanks for taking the time to write your letter, below. I recall that just a year ago people had concerns about my background – being a representative of the major retailer’s trade association, who worked quite closely with the publishers and developers. There were also concerns about the objectivity of GP, and how we might change the site, or otherwise somehow taint Dennis’ perspective. I think with time those concerns alleviated due to a proven track record, and think that will likely need to be the case for Jenn as well.

I would debate your assertion that the ECA only concerns itself, as an organization, with game violence as an issue to the exclusion of all other matters. I appreciate that we haven’t been as forthcoming in all of our activities as we’d like to be, and to that end it leaves members (and indeed, potential members) not knowing the confidential business that we’re undertaking. But I’ll need to ask you to rely on our expertise, and know that we’re working diligently behind the scenes on a whole host of issues… violent games legislation included. Just because you don’t see us doing the work and issuing press releases, doesn’t mean it’s not being done.

Oftentimes, working quietly – forging new partnerships and alliances, researching possible compromises or alternative solutions – accomplishes more than a full-frontal assault.

I understand that you would like to know where we stand on all of the related issues, below… so too would both our allies, as well as our advisories. I accept the blame for not being more overt with our positions. I feel it imprudent to expose the good work being done prematurely.

There is certainly a good amount of faith that we’re asking of our members to be sure. We’re just completing a soft-launch phase; building out back-end modules, driving awareness of the org and slowly building membership… and even chapters. I recognize that some potential members will not want to join the cause until we have repeatedly proven ourselves time and again, but I hope that others will take me at my word when I say that we remain true to our name, and our calling.

Oh, it should also be noted for the record that empowering Dennis to continue to do the amazing job he and the other GP staff do on a daily basis is, in fact, the ECA doing something. Each time that an article or forum thread discusses the subjects you mention below, we are culpable. So just enabling the conversation to regularly take place, and keeping readers apprised of the latest news and views on the respective subjects, does prove our involvement to at least an editorial and educational extent.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration. I do hope you decide to join the ECA, today or in the future. Having members who care and who want to be involved is what will ultimately make the association as important and impactful as I know it will become.


Best,

-Hal.

Hal Halpin, pres.
ECA


P.S. – I’ll post these emails in the GamePolitics Forums in the ECA Q&A area (minus your full name and email info, of course) in case others have similar questions.

________________________________________

From: Josh H [mailto:WITHHELD]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:41 PM
To: membership@theeca.com; dennis@gamepolitics.com
Subject: Requesting Clarification on ECA's Positions

Mr. Halpin, Mr. McCauley, et al.:

I am an avid gamer and a have been a reader of GamePolitics for almost as long as it's been around. I was considering membership but I am unclear on the ECA's positions and I have concerns now that an ex-ESA associate has been recently hired as a lobbyist. If these concerns can be cleared up satisfactorily, I would happily enlist in such an organization.

So far the only issues that the ECA seems to cover are video game legislation with regards to de facto censorship via government mandated rating enforcement, which entails a lobbying and legal effort already being carried out by the industry and publisher's representatives, the ESA. So much so, that I feel there would be an overlap to primarily focus the ECA's efforts at merely allowing the publishers to sell to us the products they are already fighting in court to be able to sell to us.

The very name of the ECA, Entertainment Consumers Association, and the tagline of the ECA site, "representing the interactive entertainment consumer" indicate a representation of consumer interests as opposed to industry interests. Therefore, I would like to inquire about the ECA's stances on:
• Consumer identification
• Net Neutrality
• Digital Rights Management (DRM)
• Chip modding
• Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
• General consumer protection

They are listed on the ECA website under Position Statements, with the preface "The following statements convey the position of the organization as it relates to each respective matter". However, I cannot infer what the ECA's postions are in regards to those matters. There have been no press statements (that I am aware of) from Mr. Halpin regarding news relating to these positions (such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids that seized modchips and chipped hardware). Even a qualifying "pro" or "anti" in reference to those listed positions would help clarify things.

The ESA has already taken pro-DMCA, pro-Copyright Alliance, pro-DRM stances, which are very anti-consumer. A consumer should be legally allowed to import foreign games, to legally modify hardware he has purchased, to legally resell used software (a right which exists now but possibly challenged in the future under the idea of the "license" being the subject of the transaction rather than the software/game itself), and to not be subject to overreaching EULA's.

Is the ECA planning to stand up for consumers when hardware issues such as the oft-criticized Xbox 360 Red Rings of Death arise in the future? Or trying to change the industry standard of locking consoles and games to geographic regions (which cripples legal imports without violating the DMCA or purchasing an additional console)? Will the ECA protect consumer interests when companies use onerous DRM (ala StarForce malware)? What will the ECA do concerning overly draconian EULA's, or the very existence of EULA's in the first place?

In short, on these positions - where does the ECA stand and are they willing to challenge the industry and the ESA to protect the consumer, and how do they plan to do so?

Thank you for your time.

-- Josh

[ezacharyk]

Thanks for the response to Josh's email. I know that I have been wondering about the same issues that Josh wrote about. I like your answer and understand the position you are in.

There is no need to rush headlong into the fray. Touchy topics such as DRM and the DMCA require careful planning and tact.

I do hope that the positions that you take reflect the true feelings of the consumer and reflect fair use as it is meant to be.

As a consolation to anyone who is considering joining, myself included, the membership fee is per year and if you don't like what you see during that year, you don't have to remain a member.

I will be joining soon.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Hal
its good to see the ECA moving on user rights I was worrying you'd put it off for another year or 2, every lil bit counts, keep up the good work!

[Hal Halpin]

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words and all of the messages of support here, on our FaceBook and MySpace accounts and in email. We were really surprised by the reaction from the broader gamer community - and even much of the industry (with a few of my developer friends understandably torn).

The question we've been getting the most goes to your statement about why now. To be honest, we were (and are) very much focused on building the infrastructure of the org. It was, ironically, the ESA that diverted our attention long enough to realize the importance and timeliness of the issue. And it was your (GP readers) reaction to Mike Gallagher's public support for using DMCA as a global model that prompted those conversations.

There was more to it, of course, including conversations between ESA and ECA about ways in which our advocacy efforts and VGVNs might either work together or otherwise overlap - which lead to us thinking about the issues that VGVN wouldn't be willing/able to weigh-in on video game voter's issues. It's a complex relationship, and one that I hope won't be soured by our position on any one single issue - especially given our other, also quite important, areas of mutual interest.

Anyhow, since it was such a popular question, I thought it appropriate to answer. Again, thanks for your support!

[ZippyDSMlee]

Thanks. I appreciate the kind words and all of the messages of support here, on our FaceBook and MySpace accounts and in email. We were really surprised by the reaction from the broader gamer community - and even much of the industry (with a few of my developer friends understandably torn).

The question we've been getting the most goes to your statement about why now. To be honest, we were (and are) very much focused on building the infrastructure of the org. It was, ironically, the ESA that diverted our attention long enough to realize the importance and timeliness of the issue. And it was your (GP readers) reaction to Mike Gallagher's public support for using DMCA as a global model that prompted those conversations.

There was more to it, of course, including conversations between ESA and ECA about ways in which our advocacy efforts and VGVNs might either work together or otherwise overlap - which lead to us thinking about the issues that VGVN wouldn't be willing/able to weigh-in on video game voter's issues. It's a complex relationship, and one that I hope won't be soured by our position on any one single issue - especially given our other, also quite important, areas of mutual interest.

Anyhow, since it was such a popular question, I thought it appropriate to answer. Again, thanks for your support!

That and the nature of the game(or as much as a zippy can udnerstand LOL), you need status to rally others to the cause this takes time, it helps to not look foolish when you make public statements(altho zippy is already a fool many times over).

Keep on trying to find a middle ground so consuemrs can protect their investments!

[kurisu7885]

After seeing what's being at least attempted on Capital hill, I will be joining when I have the means to do so.

[ezacharyk]

which lead to us thinking about the issues that VGVN wouldn't be willing/able to weigh-in on video game voter's issues.

This is why I have always been skeptical of the VGVN. There are certain consumer issues that the ESA would never let a branch of their organization bring to light. The DMCA is one of those. The DMCA works to the advantage of the ESA, but not the consumer which is what the VGVN should be about.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

Is the ECA US-specific?

[Thomas Valentino]

Is the ECA US-specific?

Hey BlackIce, thanks for your question. Here's what you need to know.

The ECA is legally a 501(c)(4) US non-profit membership organization. Unless we start up other legal entities, for example "ECA branches, divisions, etc, in other countries, we can’t really claim to be "international", but there has been lots of demand for membership from people in several countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, to name a few. We will be pursuing starting up chapters of the ECA in those countries. Membership dues wouldn't change, but the benefits might, for example we can’t vouch for magazine publishing partners to honor discounts or free offers. So we still have some work to do. Those that are interested in joining and helping us work through those issues can though.

[BlackIce, British Commie]

Hey BlackIce, thanks for your question. Here's what you need to know.

The ECA is legally a 501(c)(4) US non-profit membership organization. Unless we start up other legal entities, for example "ECA branches, divisions, etc, in other countries, we can’t really claim to be "international", but there has been lots of demand for membership from people in several countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, to name a few. We will be pursuing starting up chapters of the ECA in those countries. Membership dues wouldn't change, but the benefits might, for example we can’t vouch for magazine publishing partners to honor discounts or free offers. So we still have some work to do. Those that are interested in joining and helping us work through those issues can though.

I see. If there's anything I can do to help, just say.

[Hal Halpin]

From ECA FaceBook Member, Regina:

Great question Regina. The ECA is a 501(c)(4) non-profit membership org - an IRS designation that classifies the type of entity that we are and business that we do. It's significant because that same classification prohibits us from backing any one party or politician. The rules have been further tightened recently, restricting us from promoting anyone (again, relevant because of our publications: GamePolitics, GameCulture, ECA Today, etc. which cover them when newsworthy). But I don't know that I would want us to even if we could. The ECA represents ALL gamers, each with their own ethics, morals and perspectives. So apart from educating members about a candidate's position as it relates to gaming, I'm not sure that it would be our place. Hope that answers your question. :)

[Hal Halpin]

From ECA FaceBook Member, Don:

I was wondering if the ECA could help us out in finding out where each canidate stands on interactive entertainment. I know as a voting gamer, a candidates stance on one of my favorite pastimes is a big issue when Im deciding who to pull the lever for. It would be very helpful if the ECA could help us get through all the political hoopla and mucky-muck and find out where each major canidate stands.

Thanks for your time!

~Don

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Another really solid question, thanks Don.

I was just revisiting this very subject with our Director of Government Affairs this morning. The short answer is that we're checking in on the related rules and regs to be cautious, but as the field is narrowed (perhaps as early as today/tomorrow) there really shouldn't be any reason that we could not pose the questions to the candidates. Getting a response may be another thing entirely tho ;)

But seriously, at least one presidential candidate from each party has been rather overt about their positions on media violence and it's not good. On the other hand, at least one more from each party hasn't yet tipped their hand fully - so it would be great to know.

As I tell the mass media outlets when they ask if media violence should even be an election year issue; it should because it matters - perhaps not to the same degree as a first tier issue, but it could also be a tipping point between two candidates that someone might be torn between.

We'll see what we can do!