On Wednesday game publishers' lobbying group ESA issued a press release praising members of the bipartisan Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus for singling out Spain, Canada, Mexico, Russia and China as anti-piracy priorities for 2009.

ESA CEO Michael Gallagher praised the IAPC in a press release:

We thank the Caucus for this year issuing a challenge to Canada and Mexico to pass additional legislative protections – such as prohibitions on ‘mod chips’ and other circumvention devices that are used to play pirated games – and to follow through with greater enforcement and border controls.

We also thank the Caucus for highlighting the severe problems that exist for our industry and other copyright industries in Spain. Online and peer-to-peer piracy are rampant and virtually unchecked in Spain and in other major European markets...

But Nick Farrell of the U.K.-based Inquirer, doesn't think much of the caucus, implying that the senators and representatives on the IAPC have been lobbied by the RIAA and other IP rights holders. Farrell writes:

The RIAA has got its tame politicians in the US congress to rail at other nations that don't hold such a jack-booted attitude toward copyright infringement as the Land of the Free...

[IAPC] singled out Baidu, China's largest Internet search engine, as being "responsible for the vast majority of illegal music downloading in China." That's interesting, because Baidu does the same thing as Google which, as a powerful US company, the music industry has not dared to denounce...

It seems almost as though the entertainment mafiaa would like the US to mount a cross-border raid into Canada over its perceived lack of draconian copyright enforcement and wants the US to treat its NATO ally Spain as a pariah for having the temerity to say that peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet isn't a crime.

GameDaily is running a feature in which ESA boss Michael Gallagher answers 10 questions from readers.

Although it sounds juicy, there are no real fireworks in either the questions and answers. Here's a sample:

9. What areas of the ESA do you feel need improvement in terms of serving the needs of the U.S. game industry, and what are you doing to address these?

Fixing the E3 Expo is a critical step forward. We need an industry event that captures the energy, creativity, and growth on our entertainment medium. I look forward to the lift ESA will get from the much improved show next June. In addition, it is critical for our industry to elevate its participation in the political process – through the ESA PAC as well as through the hundreds of candidates ESA supported on the state level. We need to boost those resources and improve targeting going forward.

On the grass roots level, we need to continue to grow, excite, and unleash the Video Game Voters Network in the policy arena... The video game industry is dynamic and fast-growing – and ESA must continue to foster and represent those qualities on behalf of the industry, its innovators, entrepreneurs, artists, and consumers.

Gallagher also talks about his view of what the Obama administration will mean for games. Interesting, but he has already tackled this subject in some detail.

GP: I would have liked to have asked if Gallagher really imagines that the VGVN can legitimately represent game buyers when game sellers are paying the freight? Isn't that a bit like asking General Motors to represent drivers?

Sure, the interests of gamers and publishers converge on issues like censorship. But those interests diverge wildly when it comes to a number of issues which affect consumers such as DRM, the DMCA and used game trades.

And, yes, I recognize that I've got an inherent conflict of interest on this topic due to the ECA's ownership of GamePolitics. It's really the main reason I haven't been more vocal on this issue. But given the many controversies over anti-consumer measures like SecuROM, I'm frankly surprised that other outlets in the gaming press don't weigh in.

In a no-holds-barred interview with Crispy Gamer, Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin dishes on the uneasy relationship between Washington, D.C. and the video game community.

As part of his leadership role with the ECA, Hal does quite a few interviews, but this one with CG's James Fudge is probably the most in-depth yet. Here are some of Hal's thoughts:

On game publisher group the ESA's new (in 2008) practice of making campaign donations:

The [ESA] represents the rights of game publishing companies and as such has a duty to do what it can to influence legislators by lobbying. I know that starting up a PAC (Political Action Committee) was a decision that they grappled with for over a decade... PACs can be effective tools, but yes, you do run the risk – nowadays – that the ends may not justify the means...

On game ratings and whether the industry does enough to keep mature-themed games away from minors:

I’ve been a fan of ESRB for quite some time. Of all of the ratings systems... it really is the most comprehensive and valuable... That said, there’s always room for improvement. Perhaps ESRB having more independence from the ESA would be one great step. Another might be to work more closely with us... which we’re working on...

 

I do [think the industry is well at keeping M-rated games away from minors]...

On supposed tensions between the ESA (publishers group) and the ECA (consumers group):

We should be clear that the ESA represents the rights of game publishing companies, not gamers... It’s a trade association that looks after the interests of their member corporations... That said, much of the legislative work that the ESA has done over the years, with regard to First Amendment in particular, has benefitted the sector as a whole – gamers included.

 

As Mike Gallagher (ESA president) and I have discussed several times, the vast majority of the time ESA and ECA are on the same page... but there are clearly other times where our interests are necessarily divergent. Inherently, Mike’s issues will sometimes be in opposition to the best interests of consumers solely because they’re in the best interests of publishing companies...

On frequent game violence critic Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT):

Joe Lieberman has been largely misunderstood and painted with a very broad brush in my opinion. While I haven’t agreed with much of what he has said in the past, he alone among legislators was responsible for effecting non-legislative change in our business and did it with a lot of class, I might add.

 

Again, back when I was running [game retailers group] IEMA, I received a call from one of his staff inviting me to his office in Hartford. We had a frank meeting in which he requested that game retailers begin carding for the sale of mature-rated games in much the same way that movie theatre owners were doing, via self-regulatory efforts, with R-rated movies. The IEMA retailers... met the challenge head-on and reacted quickly and efficiently – changing the way in which games were sold, forever.

On game rentals and used game trade-ins by consumers, which some publishers and developers would like to see ended:

I understand the concerns that developer friends of mine have about not getting a second bite of the apple... In the movie business, they produce a theatrical version and then DVD, Blu-ray, Video on Demand (VoD), PSP and pay-per-view versions...

 

[Game biz types] see rental and used as businesses in which they don’t get to participate. And while I understand and appreciate their perspective... I’m still not convinced that rental and used are bad for the sector. We’ve witnessed how rental has provided a low-cost venue for people to try before you buy; same for used...

On the U.S. Supreme Court and its potential impact on video games:

Well, [a change in the balance of the court] will most definitely present a problem for the industry, but not necessarily consumers. The more conservative judges are also the ones that tend to side with intellectual property owners over consumers, for instance. Tech policy is in for a major shift from the right to the left in my opinion, and that would be very good for consumers, but quite disconcerting for the IP-concerned trade associations (MPAA, RIAA and ESA).

 

We’ve also heard that the conservative judges would be more likely to be open to anti-games/gamer bills, so a shift to the more liberal side would be good for both the trade and consumers in that regard.

Hal also points interested gamers to a detailed listing of ECA's position statements.

FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), national co-chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, was among recipients of 3rd quarter campaign contributions from the video game industry's political action committee. Jackson (left), who received $1,000, is the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

As GamePolitics has previously reported, the Entertainment Software Association, which lobbies on behalf of U.S. game publishers, formed its PAC late last year and began making contributions in 2008.

In addition to Jackson, 3rd quarter campaign donation recipients include:

• $1,000 - Sen. Gordon Harold Smith (R-OR)
• $2,300 - Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
• $1,000 - George Radanovich (R-CA)
• $1,000 - Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL)

Contributions to the ESA PAC came from:

• $5,000 - Walt Disney Employees PAC
• $250 - EA P.R. exec Jeff Brown

It's always entertaining to guess why the ESA chooses to fund particular candidates. In Jackson's case, the strong Obama connection is a significant clue. In addition, the seven-term Democrat is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. His family connections can't hurt, either, although he has occasionally been put in the position of doing damage control over comments made by his father.

Bono Mack, a moderate Republican, has been a strong supporter of copyright protections in the past, which makes her a natural ally of video game publishers. The ESA PAC actually made a contribution to her in the first quarter, but it appears that the check wasn't cashed for some reason and was re-issued.

Smith is a moderate Republican who serves on the Senate Commerce Committee. He has a track record of supporting IP content owners, so it's not difficult to guess why the ESA would look favorably upon his re-election. As a longtime Tivo and DVR user, GP notes this rather disturbing passage from Smith's Wikipedia page:

In January 2006, Smith began circulating a draft of the Digital Content Protection Act of 2006... The legislation would grant the Federal Communications Commission the authority to authorize a technology known as the "broadcast flag." This technology would enable the producers of television programming to ensure the programs cannot be recorded by viewers in their homes, for instance using a digital video recorder like TiVo or onto recordable DVDs.

Wasserman-Schultz seconded Obama's nomination at the DNC and serves on the House Appropriations and Judiciary committees. Radanovich is a conservative Republican who serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Why these two members of Congress were selected for support is not clear.

For a copy of the ESA PAC Q3 report click here.

For previous GamePolitics coverage of ESA campaign contributions, click here.

As GamePolitics reported in May, the ESA's plan to win political influence through campaign donations got off to a slow start in 2008, spreading just $4,300 among three members of Congress.

But the software publishers' lobbying group dramatically increased its political donations in the second quarter of of the year.

Using publicly available records, GamePolitics has learned that the ESA wrote checks totaling $19,000 to 17 separate candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. Two U.S. Senators received $2,000 campaign donations, while the remaining 15 recipients each received $1,000.

All recipients are incumbents. Seven senatorial and ten congressional campaigns received donations. Nine recipients are Democrats and eight are Republicans.

Recipients of ESA Q2 donations include:

• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) $2,000 - Majority Whip
• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) $1,000 - a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation
• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $1,000 
• Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) $1,000 - has supported the ESRB in the past
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $2,000 
• Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) $1,000
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), $1,000
• Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), $1,000 - the Chief Deputy Minority Whip was reported to be on John McCain's list of VP candidates
• Rep. John Howard Coble (R-NC) $1,000 - the 77-year-old Coble is the longest-serving member of Congress from North Carolina
• Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) $1,000 - a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee which has in the past considered video game legislation
• Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) $1,000 - chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
• Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) $1,000 - from the Seattle area, where so many game companies are located
• Kendrick Meek (D-FL) $1,000 - voted in favor of Net Neutrality in the past
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) $1,000 - has expressed concern about games previously on the floor of Congress
• Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) $1,000
• Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) $1,000
• Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), $1,000

GP: The notes which follow some of the names are just ballpark guesses as to why a particular recipient may have been of interest to the ESA politically.

As to where the money came from, EA CEO John Riccitiello and Sony CEO Jack Tretton each ponied up $5,000, as did the Microsoft Corporation Political Action Committee.

When ESA head Mike Gallagher announced in January that the organization would begin making political campaign contributions, he projected that $50,000 - $100,000 would be donated to various candidates by year's end.

However, figures obtained by GamePolitics show that the ESA's campaign contribution initiative is off to a slow start. Through April 15th, a total of just $4,300 had been donated to three Congressional campaigns:

• Rep. Jim Clyburn D-SC, $1,000
• Rep. Artur Davis D-AL, $1,000
• Rep. Mary Bono Mack R-CA, $2,300

Wooing Clyburn is a no-brainer for the ESA. The influential Democrat serves as House Majority Whip. Bono Mack, a moderate Republican, has been a strong supporter of copyright protections in the past, which makes her a natural ally of video game publishers. It's less clear why the Davis campaign was chosen to receive ESA money.

First quarter fund-raising for the ESA's political action committee wasn't all that impressive, either, especially given that donations to the PAC form the financial basis for campaign contributions. As of April 15th, a mere six donors contributed a total of $27,500. These included Gallagher himself as well as Microsoft's Robbie Bach, who chaired the ESA board of directors at the time the political action committee was formed.

Here's who donated to the ESA PAC:

• Robbie Bach (Microsoft),  $2,500
• Mike Gallagher (ESA), $5,000
• Laurent Detoc (Ubisoft), $5,000
• Ben Feder (Take-Two), $5,000
• Graham Hopper (Disney), $5,000
• Hiroshi Tobisawa (Capcom USA), $5,000

Interestingly enough, none of the 2008 presidential candidates received ESA PAC money in the first quarter. Details on contributions made after April 15th are not yet available.

Few things capture a politician's attention like campaign donations.

That's why, as the New York Times reports, the Entertainment Software Association will soon begin spreading money around to candidates for federal office. The video game publishers' organization has created a political action committee (PAC) to facilitate its campaign donations.

Regarding the move, ESA boss Michael Gallagher told the Times' Seth Schiesel:
 

We will be writing checks to campaigns by the end of this quarter. This is an important step in the political maturation process of the industry that we are ready to take now. This is about identifying and supporting champions for the game industry on Capitol Hill so that they support us.

Gallagher said the ESA's PAC would most likely donate $50,000 to $100,000 in 2008. Federal election law prevents giving more than $5,000 to any single candidate. In flexing the ESA's political muscle, Gallagher also touted the Video Game Voters' Network:
 

If I can walk into the office of a member of Congress and tell them we have 20,000 voters in their state who are already signed up to write letters and act based on game-related issues that concern them, that’s powerful.

GP: While the NYT's Schiesel writes of "a much more favorable and tolerant attitude toward video games both among the general public and politicians," we're not so sure we agree. Games seem under attack as much as ever.