Just to clarify here, guys, I'm pretty sure that the various gaming media outlets who suggested this boycott to begin with (including LoadingReadyRun, Extra Creditz, etc.) only said that they would do so until ESA withdrew its support.
The end goal of the boycott was not crushing SOPA/PIPA - it was using leverage to get the ESA to stop supporting it. The fact of the matter is that although the ESA does not necessarily represent the gaming industry as a whole, that is how D.C. will see it. What's more is that because the ESA is a veritable "arm" of the gaming industry, anyone in our sub-culture who disagrees with the bill has very good reason to want the ESA to pull out.
If I'm understanding correctly, the ESA gets a great deal of its cash flow and marketing from E3. It follows that when a community of individuals wants a corporate entity to see that their customers and supporters are upset with their behavior, the most effective way to evoke change is through the business' wallet. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat - because I know we've seen this kind of rhetoric a lot in the past several months - this isn't some anti-capitalist, Occupy movement, liberal agenda, this is simply how the producer-consumer relationship works. If a business sees that enough of its potential support (the consumer) is ripped out from under it, for whatever reason, it must adapt to change in order to survive.
That being said, if the ESA has backed out of SOPA/PIPA, I see no reason to continue the boycott until reasonable evidence is exposed to suggest that they might support similar litigation in the future. Unless we can say for certain that the ESA has backed out of supporting SOPA/PIPA for reasons having nothing to do with these threats of boycotting E3, then I think we ought to presume that the ESA has learned its lesson.
But, I think we all ought to remember that this isn't anything we ought to be demonizing the ESA for. Piracy is a serious problem for every productive aspect of the gaming industry, and just plain unethical besides from a consumer perspective. However, bills as dangerous as SOPA/PIPA are simply not the way to go in tackling this issue. The ESA, I'm sure, only did what it thought was best at the time. Call me a naïve optimist, but I believe that the ESA simply jumped the gun and made a mistake in oversight. Organizations like ESA are, after all, not congealed masses of individuals made up of one hive mind, but a group of men and women who, at the end of the day, must make decisions in compromise for what they believe to be in their best interest.
The end goal of the boycott was not crushing SOPA/PIPA - it was using leverage to get the ESA to stop supporting it. The fact of the matter is that although the ESA does not necessarily represent the gaming industry as a whole, that is how D.C. will see it. What's more is that because the ESA is a veritable "arm" of the gaming industry, anyone in our sub-culture who disagrees with the bill has very good reason to want the ESA to pull out.
If I'm understanding correctly, the ESA gets a great deal of its cash flow and marketing from E3. It follows that when a community of individuals wants a corporate entity to see that their customers and supporters are upset with their behavior, the most effective way to evoke change is through the business' wallet. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat - because I know we've seen this kind of rhetoric a lot in the past several months - this isn't some anti-capitalist, Occupy movement, liberal agenda, this is simply how the producer-consumer relationship works. If a business sees that enough of its potential support (the consumer) is ripped out from under it, for whatever reason, it must adapt to change in order to survive.
That being said, if the ESA has backed out of SOPA/PIPA, I see no reason to continue the boycott until reasonable evidence is exposed to suggest that they might support similar litigation in the future. Unless we can say for certain that the ESA has backed out of supporting SOPA/PIPA for reasons having nothing to do with these threats of boycotting E3, then I think we ought to presume that the ESA has learned its lesson.
But, I think we all ought to remember that this isn't anything we ought to be demonizing the ESA for. Piracy is a serious problem for every productive aspect of the gaming industry, and just plain unethical besides from a consumer perspective. However, bills as dangerous as SOPA/PIPA are simply not the way to go in tackling this issue. The ESA, I'm sure, only did what it thought was best at the time. Call me a naïve optimist, but I believe that the ESA simply jumped the gun and made a mistake in oversight. Organizations like ESA are, after all, not congealed masses of individuals made up of one hive mind, but a group of men and women who, at the end of the day, must make decisions in compromise for what they believe to be in their best interest.