Slashdot Mirror
Salon on Video Games and Free Speech
EyesWideOpen writes: "There is an article at Salon that covers a U.S. District Judge's ruling that computer games don't deserve First Amendment protection. The ruling is in response to The Interactive Digital Software Association's request for the dismissal of an ordinance that requires parental consent before children under 17 can buy or play violent or sexually explicit video games. From the Salon article: 'From his ruling, [US District Judge] Limbaugh appears to believe that no amount of contextual information, or additional narrative, in a game is enough to make it a work of art or expression worthy of the name 'free speech.'' The judge's deliberations were based in part on his review of four games: 'Fear Effect,' 'Doom,' 'Mortal Kombat' and 'Resident Evil'."
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Somebody explain this apparent hypocrisy to me please.
There's a difference between copyright and free speech. In fact, they're about as related as capitalism and matricarchy.
"Free Speech" is the idea that the government cannot made a law keeping you from communicating something. There are a few limits on it ("you can't shout fire in a crowded theather"), but absent a very good reason, the government can't stop you from communicating whatever you want.
(From "this sucks" to "let's be communist" to "all commies must die.")
"Copyright" is a different beast altogether. It's the government recognizing the right of someone who works to create a thing that's very easily copied (like a book or a poem) to gain fiscal benefit from people using this thing. It's the government outlining how long the creator of a protected work gets total control over who gets to make copies. (When that time's up, it goes into the "public doman," which anyone can make copies of.)
This part is the core of copyright protection, and it's what Microsoft & the rest offer you in exchange for you agreeing to their EULA.
The hariy part about copyright comes when you take only a little bit of someone's work, add your own into it, and make a new work. This is what's called a "derivitive work," and it's the legal basis behind the GPL. Since you're making a copy of PART of someone's work, you're breaking the copyright law ("infringement.") But since someone made something new, THEY have a copyright on it to. In this situation, both parties need to agree to do anything with teh second work--or they need to go to a judge, who decides if a work is or is not "derivitive."
An exception to this is "Fair Use," which is a few specific exceptions (Journalism, Academia, and Parody) wherin the infringement isn't punishable.
SO, let's say that I write a novel. (I am, btw. Just about done, too.) My novel is Copyrighted. Because of Free Speech, the government cannot come down and lock me in jail because the main characters rebel against their government and break the law. My copyright means that if you want you very own copy of my novel, you need to convince me (ordinarilly by buying it from a publiher) to let you do it.
If you like my fantasy world a lot, and you write your own "fanfic", you need my permission to do anything at all with it, including post it on the web, and especially including selling your own copies. You've infringed by copying my setting.
If you decide to write a review of my novel for your school paper (or local paper), you can quote a small bit of it for journalistic use and I can't say a darn thing, because of Fair Use. Unless you quote an entire chapter every week, in which case I can probably get a judge to rule that you're not really being journalistic.
One more thing--I'm not a lawyer. Please, please, PLEASE don't do anything and then come back and say "well, this guy on Slashdot said it was OK." IANAL, and dispensing legal advice when you're not can get you busted. (I was merely sharing my understanding of the law.)