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'."
with that list I'm suprised he didn't make video games illegal.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Who picked the games for the court to review? Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil? How about Final Fantasy X (or just about any other RPG)? Black and White and Medal of Honor were mentioned in the review, but there are tons of games with a lot more content than Mortal Kombat.
-- Adam
If this judge had reviewed, say, System Shock 2, or even Half-Life, he might have had a higher opinion of computer gaming. Heck, even Starcraft would have gone a long way towards convincing the judge that games can be as legitimate a story-telling format as any book, and should be entitled to the same rights. So where did he get the idea to review these specific games?
I'm the stranger...posting to
removes your right to judge. I mean seriously. If you aren't an expert or at least very knowledgeable about literature you really don't have a right to say which books are better than others. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to an opinion and a right to voice that opinion. What I'm saying is that if you aren't knowledgeable about something, then your judgement isn't valid.
This is why we are having such trouble with laws regarding software, video games, etc. The lawyers, judges, and other people with the power to make decisions aren't knowledgeable enough to make well informed decisions. I mean you got a guy who play 4 very violent games with an extreme lack of plot and then decided games weren't art. Try getting a judge who's played games since he was 2. Someone who knows. When people who were alive before computers retire and the next generation comes into power I'm sure we wont have these stupid problems anymore, because people with power to decide will be more knowledgeable.
I would also like to see if this judge would make the same decision after playing through Final Fantasy 6 or Chrono Trigger.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I personally believe the judge was fair and informed. This can be seen by his
A. Wrong use of 2 of the titles
"Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek"
B. Only looked at 4 titles.
The judge didn't play the games. He was shown video clips ( More likely to be the gory ones such as a MK Fatality ) and of the games he did see all 4 were basically the Gory ones in the industry. He didn't see Final Fantasy. He didn't see Metal of Honor. He didn't see any of the other more robust and story/plot/idealistic driven games.
This is similar to judging all movies value as Free Speech based on
Nightmare on Elm St.
Halloween
Friday the 13th
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Anybody can see how ridiculous a judgement based on such a small set of evidence is. However, I do believe that the Gaming industry should have done a better job. Why didn't he see anything else?!? Why did he only see the "plots" of specific games and not a showing of those games themselves including cut-scenes. gameplay and the likes?
I offer this as an example of what probably happened to him while he was playing.
qslack.com
At least read the slashdot tagline!
...an ordinance that requires parental consent before children under 17 can buy or play violent or sexually explicit video games...
Final Fantasy whatever is neither violent nor sexually explicit. Neither is Black and White. Nor Myst. Nor Civilization. Nor any of the other games that were mentioned to defend "video games" as protected speech.
Doom, Mortal Kombat, and Resident Evil are famous games for their violence. And they're also all three lacking in *speech*. They're great marvels of techonlogy (for their times) and gameplay (for even now, in some ways), but they're not necessarily worthy of judicial protection.
The ruling isn't saying "all games aren't speech." It's saying "game's aren't always protected speech."
Heck, I mean--NO form of expression is always protected speech. If I slander someone in a song, I'm still civilly / criminally liable. If I write a novel that's sexually evocative, I'm still regulated as porn.
I for one and quite happy with "mature" video games being regulated as "adult content." Especially when the law rests on the permission of the parents, who in my day were the ones actually purchasing the games anyway.
"My Zaibatsu Monstrosity can even cross rivers! So far I've only hit a few puddles in the parking lot, but it's good to know that it's there. Besides, I'm a mom, not a conservationist."
It touches on gun control, child labor and other issues that companies or political action committees would rather not have pumped into the ears of teenage consumers.
Could Ford pull GTA3 off the shelves by claiming it unfairly portrays its Explorer line? Could the NRA block the release of GTA4 by complaining it doesn't like the game's portrayal of gun owners?
How far does this go? What about games like Sim City? Could the mayor of a major city sue EA for defamation of character (by teaching people that his style of city-management doesn't work)?
Not playing a video game is like reading a book based on a movie. You only get the idea and it's not the same thing, sometimes radically different.
Video gamimg is the first automated warm medium, where the player (or audience) is part of the feedback that creates the show. Movies, TV, and playing music on a CD are cold mediums, where the audience has no/little effect on the entertainment. (though some would argue that the audience is the entertainment at plays/concerts) Story telling (esp. with small children), books, stand up comics ( esp. in small clubs) are warm, where the audience takes part in the performance.
Video gaming being as young as it is, and having such a high cost to entry for new games has created a culture where everyone goes for the largest market, throwing aside everything but the almighty dollar. Even the Salon article admints that the Sims almost didn't get made, which goes to show how single minded these game publishers are. $$$$$
So far, I've seem many comments about people comparing these games to RPGs, but what about the true classics, like Pac-Man, Tetris, Galaga, Bust-a-Move, etc. These games are like poetry compared to the monstrous volumes that are required to encompass most RPGs. Games like Golden Axe where the whole point is to destroy the tyrant who has usurped the power from the king in the region.
Some of the best examples of games and conveyance of ideas come from old Sierra games, especially the Lesiure Suit Larry series. That series was nothing but satire, pure and simple. The game was solving the most insane puzzles to advance the almost non-existant plot, but the items you got and the way they were described picked on a multitude of facets of american culture.
Unfortunatly, most games teach that might = right and you must be the strongest most powerful (Insert stereotype here) in the world. And that concludes their message. It's the games like Ultima, B&W, every Sim game ever that show us new ways of thinking, since in many cases we must change the way we think about a problem in order to solve it in the world of the game.
This is, I believe, because new industries don't own any legislative assets like senators or judges, by the very virtue of their newness.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Anyway, this law (the video games thing), along with past issues of "censorship" in the form of government-coerced industry self-policing got me thinking.
The logic seems to be this:
Some material is harmful to minors (I can buy that)
Custodians of said minors are not competant enough to police the material themselves (I cannot accept this)
Legislate morality into the industry, rather than trust parents (I think this simply bites)
It got me thinking... If a parent (an "adult", mind you) can't be trusted to read a lyric, listen to an album, or watch a movie to determine if the material is right for their own kids (and this is easy stuff -- "yup, there's 4 scenes containing bush in Porky's, so Little Johnny can't rent it"), how the bloody hell can these same adults be expected to abide by the terms of a 20-page legalese-ridden EULA!!!
I mean, there's gotta be some precedent here, right? If a legal adult can't be trusted to interpret the dumbed-down lyrics/music/visuals of modern-day mass media, there's just no way in hell they can handle a EULA! Release the attack litigators!
I say if we adults are deemed too dumb to spot a tit in a movie or hear a naughty word in Prince's latest single, then other laws should reflect that. They shouldn't have it both ways.
And I'd much rather have the labeling laws (and similar nonsense) repealed than to have new laws passed to protect us from EULA's.
Back on topic, I have kids, and I know there's some disturbing stuff out there in theaters, in music, and on the internet. No, I'd rather my 6-year-old daughter not see porn pics on the internet or my 3-year-old son watch some guy get his spine ripped out in a video game, but, dammit, all these restrictions on content diminish what I can access now and what they can access as adults. This is what I ultimately object to. Because labels make it easy for suppliers to throttle the supply (i.e., Wal Mart will not carry "Parental Advisory" labeled music), which makes the content providers (artists) either change their creations or they're not accessible with equal footing to those who do. And that, my friends, is where this slippery slope goes. I don't think there's any real happy ground in between.
Umm... < looks at post> sorry for the rant...
Method of processing duck feet
Questions:
1. What is the relation between "free speech" and "copyright"? If a game is not free speech, can it still be copyrighted? According to this, "any original expression that is fixed in a tangible form" can be copyrighted.
2. Could a saved game-- which maybe would be considered a "performance" -- be considered free speech? I mean, if I play some 3d shooting game and kill only the politicians, isn't the saved game a kind of performance art?
3. What about hacked ROM games? Some of these must fall under "parody", no?
4. Surely games written by recognized literary greats, such as Douglas Adam's "Beaurocracy" is not only legitimate expression but social satire?
5. How do you draw the line between straight fiction, a choose-your-own-adventure book, and an Infocom interactive adventure?
6. If you printed out an Infocom game's text replacing the user's typed instructions with "Turn to page 7 to do xxxx" and published it as a book, would the video game suddenly become speech?
Maybe Dave Touretsky needs to set up another gallery.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.)