EA explains lack of SOPA stance

by Alexander Sliwinski on Jan 17th 2012 11:00AM

Responding to a Reddit reader, Electronic Arts corporate communication head Jeff Brown has detailed the publisher's lack of position on the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA).

"EA has not expressed a position on SOPA," Brown wrote in the letter, noting there was confusion over the holiday about the company's stance on the bill. "We never supported so, naturally, never withdrew. We tried to correct the record but there is still plenty of confusion."

"The game industry's representatives in Washington, Entertainment Software Association, has expressed support for SOPA ... OK true, EA is a member of ESA, and ESA supports SOPA, but we don't think that implies our support. Among ESA members, some support, some oppose, some take no position."

SOPA is currently shelved while the House "address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus."

Source: Reddit

Tags: ea, electronic-arts, esa, jeff-brown, politics, sopa

Reader Comments (46)

Qui tacet consentire videtur.

Not taking a stance means you're OK with it becoming law.

@ZTZ
You could also say that not taking a stance also means you're OK with it not becoming law.

@ZTZ Or you're OK with it not becoming a law. That arguement can go either way. I think that EA, being as big of a company as they are would be nice for them to choose a side (against) but then again them not making a stance is something that'll work for them as a business in general in the future, beneficial if it ever passes; and some type of connection to gamers of understanding if SOPA dies off.

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.”

Also, if you belong to an association and they support something then you also support it. You can't sign up for the KKK and then go on to explain that you personally have no problems with people of other races.

@ZTZ

I see what you're saying, and I think it's a great advice for citizens, but personally I wish all companies would take the stance of complete apathy. Because quite frankly, companies need to keep their noses and money out of politics and away from our easily tempted and corrupt politicians.

If a company supports either side, they're doing it with money. And that's not the right way to make a decision on laws, regardless of the outcome.

@eat it I'd prefer it if our politicians developed a spine and actually represented their constituents, not just their top donors.

Not taking a stance means that you are trying to avoid bad PR on either side.

@eat it

There is nothing wrong with corporations being able to take a stance in politics, the problem is that politicians can receive MONEY from corporations. Money often speaks louder than the general populace, especially when there is an abundance of it directed at one person.

Take monetary contributions out of politics and there may be a chance for it to become less corrupted.

@Lerkero

A corporation as a whole can only support something with money. That being said, there really is no reason for them to stand for or against anything.

A company shouldn't be allowed to give money and a politician shouldn't be able to accept money. There should be a strict law against it. Life in prison. and none of this corporate personhood crap to get around it either

@ZTZ Most likely. They just don't want the negative perception that goes along with it. And I they truly didn't support then they would bash it, which they didn't.

@jsx92
I don't think that analogy applies in this situation. The KKK specifically stand for racism. The ESA joined SOPA but they were a software association before they were involved with SOPA. Supporting SOPA is a decision the association made without the approval of all their members. So while I am a Canadian and Canada sometimes goes to war, I still dislike war and can't tell Canada what to do.

@eat it "That being said, there really is no reason for them to stand for or against anything."

That's just dumb. When congress makes laws that can affect the way your company does business and earns money, of course you should take a stance on it.

Of course they don't have a position, you need some sort of principles or moral code before you can take positions. They're just waiting to see which way the wind blows, to maximise profit streams.

@(Unverified)
Say what you want about E.A, but I've never known them NOT to take a position just because.

More often than not they have been VERY vocal about their beliefs.
However,
The problem is that most of their corporate beliefs are founded in pure contempt for their customers.

Sounds like a "Yeah, guys, it's atrocious. We're not feeling it either" to me. Which is...rather surprising, coming from EA, a company--a company in which would benefit from SOPA. Because that's really all SOPA caters to--Corporate America.

so basically... too scared to say you're against it, even though you're not?

No stance is a cowards way to support something you don't want people knowing you support. We aren't idiots EA...

But...when I went to prison everyone told me to avoid the SOAP stance!

"challenge everything" shouldn't be your moniker then EA.

@johnvonhugendong
yeah, they are not even in the game!

@johnvonhugendong - I don't think that's been their moniker for years. I don't recall seeing that tagline since I stopped playing Burnout 3 on the original Xbox.

Playing coy, eh? Why not simply take a stance against it?

EA's too cowardly to rock the boat. Check.

I'm glad, I would rather they not get involved with our government's law-making process. That's exactly why this country is so screwed up.

@eat it

Really? That's what you took from this?

They are for it.. lets not kid ourselves. Just too afraid any support they give it would backfire on them.
Basically the same reason all the major companies backed out.. they are still for it. But they noticed that it's smarter to act like you are against it and then profit from it once it passes.

You know what, I'm ok with EA's stance. If they truly do not know what is in store and want something that can stop piracy (in practice limit it down to

@AKBlade13 EA has a massive legal department. I'm sure they know exactly what's in store.

@AKBlade13 Yeah, because the bills only have anti-piracy in them!

*facepalming forever*

Hiding behind the ESA DOES imply support for SOPA. End of discussion.

There is no confusion here.

@koehler83 This.

Even if your company comes out against, unless you put your money where your mouth is and leave ESA, you're for it in my book.

The impact of SOPA / PIPA is too large to grant any quarter.

Exactly what they wanted...

Not having a say is a clever way to claim you were on the side of the victor later on when this falls one way or the other in the vote. Personally I'm certain they are ok with this considering how shady they are in everything else. I had to block them because they began spamming me with BF3 emails after a friend came over and showed me his copy of the game for five minutes on my 360. I have never authorized them to email me in ANY EA game or website for them to feel free to snatch up my personal email and spam me.

More like they were waiting it out to see how things went before they spinelessly selected a side.

"The game industry's representatives in Washington, Entertainment Software Association, has expressed support for SOPA ... OK true, EA is a member of ESA, and ESA supports SOPA, but we don't think that implies our support. Among ESA members, some support, some oppose, some take no position."

Translation: Okaaay Okaaay we know that technically we support it through association with ESA and this sounds like a bunch of BS, but hey, some ESA members have said they dont support or havent taken a public stance either way, so why should we?

I guess there's no such thing as being neutral for some people.

@civilciv There are times to be neutral, there are times to be not.

The destruction of the internet is not a time to be neutral.

@civilciv
For something this vital to the future of life in the US (and no, that's not melodrama; if this passes, it will just be the start, not the end), no, there's not. And BS. If you are a member of an organization and said organization supports something, yes, that sure as hell implies your support, especially if you refuse to comment on the matter. EA rather obviously supports SOPA and this is just BS PR spin trying to make it seem like there's a chance that they don't. Look at MLG, then look at EA. Yeah, EA sure as hell supports it.

Joe Paterno did not take a stand against Jerry Sandusky and we know how that ended.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph, do not sit by and do nothing". Edmund Burke

Love how companies are coming out against SOPA now that it's clear that it will not pass in its' current form. Too late.

Nice dodge EA.

So EA supports SOPA. Basically, anything not against it is for it with how ridiculous it is.

Why does it matter?

Why does everyone hate on these people so much? Big Boy Bosses need their caviar and Ferraris too...

But really? Why does everyone get mad that a company tries to make money? Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

Make games, publish games, sell games, profit, repeat.

@Joshua Przygocki
Because the pursuit of massive profits at the cost of everything else is no way to conduct business.

Being a part of ESA means EA supports SOPA by proxy.

Nice try EA, we're on to you!

If they pulled their support from the ESA, the ESA would have to pull its support from SOPA.

EA knows this perfectly damn well.

No opposition IS support.

Cowards and hypocrites.

EA explains lack of SOPA stance

Reader Comments (46)

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:07AM ZTZ said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:18AM Remo Williams said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:22AM WiteBoiBrown said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:22AM jsx92 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:22AM eat it said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:38AM Faceless Troll said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:21PM Lerkero said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:49PM eat it said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:07PM DeathBeforeDawn said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:25PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 2:23PM Faceless Troll said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:11AM Dick Socrates said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:16AM akeso said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:14AM Shadowbender said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:19AM gold163 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:19AM psyXcho said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:08PM Pure Black World Tendency said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:21AM johnvonhugendong said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:02PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 2:34PM Mcmax3000 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:22AM theSkillfull1 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:23AM Faceless Troll said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:27AM eat it said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:59AM Traptz said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:29AM dakun said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:39AM AKBlade13 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:03PM Faceless Troll said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 5:29PM OrangeGamer said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:51AM koehler83 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:05PM sqlrob said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 9:08PM DeathBeforeDawn said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:04PM PANdaRUS said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:06PM Scuffles said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:49PM OGC said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 12:54PM civilciv said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:22PM sqlrob said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:23PM Tiradyn said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:30PM Arcaria said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 1:48PM chum said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 3:59PM adooooom said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 5:26PM OrangeGamer said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 5:38PM Joshua Przygocki said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:35PM LordBlackass said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 8:28PM Atmosfear1 said

Posted: Jan 17th 2012 11:58PM (Unverified) said

Posted: Jan 18th 2012 8:10AM Torticoli said

Info

Description

MSRP

Release Date

Genre

Developer

Publisher

Rating

Breaking News

WB conjures up Harry Potter for Kinect this fall

Featured Stories

Stiq Figures, May 14 - 20: He's heating up edition

The Joystiq Indie Pitch: Ballin

Weekly Webcomic Wrapup is a stranger in a strange land

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW