The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its Senate cousin the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are like thermonuclear devices deployed to kill an insect. They would give copyright holders and the US government unprecedented abilities to summarily block and cut off funding for websites accused of violating copyright. Major sites ranging from reddit to Wikipedia are voluntarily going dark today in protest of the proposed laws, as an illustration of the silencing effect they could have on Internet free speech.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg for PC game developer Red 5 Studios. Not only has the studio blocked access to the beta of free-to-play open-world shooter Firefall for the day, but it also revealed last week that it is pulling out of the annual Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) showcase, which is run by the SOPA-supporting Entertainment Software Association (ESA).

Red 5 will also use the $50,000 it would have spent on a promotional E3 booth to start The League For Gamers, a grassroots group it calls "a gathering place for gamers, developers and industry supporters who want to stand against legislation that's detrimental to the games industry."

While individual ESA members like Nintendo of America, Epic Games, Electronic Arts and Microsoft have stated their individual opposition to SOPA, no studio has made such a bold move to highlight its differences with the umbrella organization.

In this interview, Red 5 CEO (and Boston University law school graduate) Mark Kern talks about the threats he sees in these bills and why he feels such drastic actions were necessary to protest them.

Ars: When you began talking about this issue at CES last week, what were the reactions of colleagues around you?

Mark Kern: Mostly silence. Even though they may have various viewpoints, they feel their hands are tied. I mean, the money's all behind this legislation, and it's been really frustrating trying to get any sort of action on the part of other people in the industry. I've had some success, though, so I hope to see something pretty soon here from at least one other company.

How important are shows like PAX and E3 to an independent studio such as Red 5?

We do a lot of shows. All of our marketing is primarily through trade shows. You won't see us doing banner ads or anything else. What matters for us, especially as a new studio with a new IP, is people getting hands-on time with the game. Press getting hands-on time, industry getting hands-on time, and most importantly gamers getting hands-on time.

When you're not a sequel, and you're not something that people are familiar with, that's really the only way to convey what's special about your game. Not doing a show, especially with some of the plans we had for E3, is quite a big decision for us.

Had Red 5 Studios expended resources on E3 2012 planning before making the decision to cancel their attendance?

Yeah. Actually, we had just done our planning, and we just signed the contracts with the ESA literally the day we decided to pull out, because once I realized that the ESA was not going to change their position, we had to send a stronger statement. I literally within hours of having signed the contracts said, "You know what? We're not going to do this."

We're on the hook with ESA for the money that we owe them, and because of our stance against what the ESA is doing here, I doubt we'll ever get that money back.

Is canceling your E3 attendance a protest of ideology or economics? In other words, does the Stop Online Piracy Act threaten the success of Firefall or the operation of Red 5 studios in any way?

You know, I have strong, personal beliefs in this. I mean, if you follow my Twitter you'll have heard me talking about everything from the Occupy movement to the Stop Online Piracy Act for months now. To me, it's really disheartening that the industry and the ESA [are] definitely putting corporate needs well above that of gamers' First Amendment rights, and the First Amendment rights of the Internet in general.

Whether or not it affects us economically... I would say yes, it does, too, because we're a free-to-play game, and we're heavily into eSports. We hired Morgan Romine, the founder of the Frag Dolls, to head up our eSports efforts coming into this year. We feel that our ability to stream games on sites like JustinTV or other streaming sites around the world is threatened by the fact that if some user were to stream the wrong content on these sites, these advocates for game spectating would be shut down financially. SOPA's pulled back on DNS blocking—yay, that's a great first start, but the whole bill's flawed, and we need to do more—but they can still shut off funds to these things and basically say, "No, this isn't the type of business we support," just because there's user-generated content.

We love the idea of user-generated content. We want to see more games with user-generated content, and [SOPA] threatens that as well. Firefall doesn't have any, specifically, right now, but we do want to protect eSports and the ability for teams and players to stream game content... A lot of shoutcasters make their living by streaming content. All it would take is one game company that says "That's not fair use," and it doesn't just affect that streamer, it affects the entire site.

It sounds like the follow-up question by Shacknews, who asked whether Red 5 would ever support the Entertainment Software Association, was the spark behind your decision not to attend E3.

It really was. I sent a letter to the ESA and I quickly got a call back from Christian, the General Counsel. He and I actually worked together at Blizzard. I was team lead for World of Warcraft, I was at Blizzard for seven and a half years, that's where I worked with Christian at the ESA. I also have a law degree from Boston University's School of Law with a specialization in intellectual property law, and I was one of the founders of the Journal of Science and Technology Law at BU Law, so this is definitely something that's up my alley.

After this call with Chris, it was really apparent that the ESA was going in completely blind. I mean, I raised several points. I said, "Listen, after your triumph with getting games in front of the Supreme Court classified as protected speech, how could you then go back and say 'Actually, not all speech is protected. There's some forms here that we're going to trump that right with the rights of copyright holders, and make them judge, jury, and executioner of what's right and wrong on the Internet.'" And obviously he didn't see it that way. He didn't feel that they were taking a hypocritical stance.

I understand. They're looking for tools to protect IP from overseas [infringement]. But I said, "Listen, you're throwing away gamer support here. You represent gamers as well. You started a Video Game Voters Network and you got everyone to back you in your fight for First Amendment speech for video games, and you're throwing all that away now. Who's going to represent them? Your members are all corporate."

[The ESA believes] this won't be abused. They really believe that they and other corporate organizations can be good caretakers for First Amendment rights. I don't know about you, but I don't think corporations should be arbiters of that at all.

So it was really frustrating. I said, "Not even all your members agree. You're not representing the indie developers, here. You're representing the large publishers, the larger interests here, and that's not what you should be doing." So, that was the spark. And I was extremely frustrated that there wasn't an organization that could represent gamers out there.

The Entertainment Software Association supports SOPA because it believes it has to take a stand against software piracy. Isn't that a reasonable stance to take for an advocacy organization if its members are losing money to piracy?

There need to be measures to protect against piracy. There need to be good tools. But the cost is insane for SOPA. It's a way that corporations can obtain injunctions, trivially, because copyright infringement is very much, "Oh, look, there's a movie clip on there," but instead of just being able to take down that movie clip, like under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, they can take down the whole site. No longer through DNS blacklisting, but they can say, "You're not on search engines, you can't do any advertising, and you can't take any payments. PayPal has to refuse you, Visa has to refuse you, MasterCard has to refuse you."

That can effectively shut down and have a chilling effect on free speech and innovation anywhere. That cost is too high. That's not something we as an industry should be doing. We shouldn't be saying "This is the way the Internet should be, and this is what gamers can see and not see, do and not do, throughout the world."

Speaking to your background in IP law, is this a matter of existing regulations not being enforced? Do we need something more than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

I'm with Gabe [Newell, founder of Valve] on this. I've read his quotes in interviews about Steam where he says "Listen, DRM isn't the answer."

[SOPA] is effectively an overreaching form of DRM over the entire world. It's the United States DRMing the world and the internet. Gabe says "Listen, piracy isn't the issue. Service and convenience and features and doing right by your customers is how you really defeat piracy," and I agree with him.

Red 5 games are cloud-hosted and we're free to play, so we don't have an issue with clients being pirated. We want to give the clients away, and we want more people to experience this entertainment, and the way that we stay ahead of the pirates on the server side is to continue to offer the best service and features and constant updates to our game, which we think benefits the gamer.

I mean, have you ever rented a movie? What do you see? What's your experience when you pop in a DVD or a Blu-Ray? You get a ton of ads up front. It takes you forever to get to the movie. You get advertising in the menus, now. The interface is horrible. I mean, compare that to someone who just downloads a movie from the internet where they have no ads, no BS in front of it, and they just watch the movie! That's what the movie industry should be doing. They should be offering better features and better service to their customers, to really make the case against why you don't want to pirate them.

You've said that you will never support the Entertainment Software Association in the future. "Never" is a strong word. Do you really think this as an unforgivable breech?

I will never join them if they are only going to represent the larger companies in the organization, and not represent the organization [as being] for gamers as a whole. So, I'm actually doing something about it. I'm starting the League for Gamers, which is basically a nonprofit, independent organization that will represent gamers' rights, defend First Amendment rights for games in Washington, defend Internet freedoms in Washington, and act against these overreaching copyright regimes imposed by the music industry and give gamers a voice in Washington.

We're taking some of the money that we were going to put into E3 and we're donating it to League for Gamers. We're putting $50,000 to seed that organization right away.

Do you think software developers who are members of the Entertainment Software Association, and also publicly against SOPA, should withdraw their membership from the ESA if its stance on SOPA is not reversed?

Absolutely. Who is the ESA representing? If these major companies are really withdrawing their support from SOPA, why is the ESA still so adamantly for it? Who the heck are they representing? And if they're not doing a good job representing our industry, the industry should definitely withdraw from the ESA.

Are you worried about any backlash from the development community for so loudly questioning industry support for the Entertainment Software Association and their backing of SOPA?

I think developers are completely against SOPA. I think publishers feel caught in the middle, and I think regardless of how they personally feel, they're worried about piracy. They're not worried enough, apparently, to help protect gamer's rights and First Amendment rights, which is the broader line for me as an American.

Do you plan to reach out to other developers and studios to invite them to join the League of Gamers or make donations or get involved as they see fit?

I think it's early to tell. I really want this to come from gamers. I really want gamers to Like the organization on Facebook, leave a comment on the wall, and what we're going to do first is petition the ESA. We're going to organize a petition to send a strong message to the ESA that the ESA does not represent gamers, and I will reach out to other game developers as well to get them to sign on board. I'll try to get them to sign on board to send that message as developers, to the ESA.

The best way to get back at the ESA is to not support E3, you know? To encourage the game press not to attend, not to cover it. Encourage game developers not to attend. If you look at the success in being able to turn organizations around I'd look at GoDaddy, right? Once it hit their pocketbook, that's a pretty clear message. If we as gamers can hit the ESA in their pocketbook, maybe they will wake up and understand that this is not the right approach to protecting IP. We need to find other ways.

Do you think it's realistic to ask developers who currently have games in development and require the buzz from E3, or to ask the game press who draws a significant amount of its traffic and therefore its living from E3, not to attend over the ESA's stance on SOPA?

If not them, then who? Democracy and freedom is always won through sweat, blood, and constant sacrifice. It is never for free. And if it's not going to be them, who is it going to be?

And yes, it will take sacrifice, but if we really want to have a voice, if you're as upset as I am with what's happening with corporate manipulation of interests in Washington, especially as in regards to our favorite pastime of gaming, this is what needs to be done. There isn't any other way to do it.

Dennis Scimeca is a freelance journalist from Boston, MA. His weekly video game opinion column, First Person, runs Thursdays on The Escapist. You can reach him through his blog, Punching Snakes, or follow his random excitations on Twitter: @DennisScimeca.