Slashdot Mirror
Take-Two Interactive and Sony Sued Over GTA
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently Take-Two Interactive is being sued by the parents of two kids who killed a man. I remember reading about the killing incident a few weeks ago, but this is the first I've read about an actual lawsuit. The part that I found most interesting was that Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console." Update: 09/18 16:27 GMT by M : The Independent has moved/deleted the story on their site, breaking our link. We've already mentioned this story anyway.
IAXM (I *AM* Ex-Military), and I don't seem to remember combat training for shooting floating eyeballs and zombies with RPGs...
Strangely, shooting a gun required things like using sights rather than just pointing in the right (compass) direction... Ah the old days...
For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
The part that I found most interesting was that Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console.
Does that mean Microsoft can be added to the lawsuit in 2004? They have tons of cash and would be a great target to add to this frivilous suit.
Do you want to back that up with some evidence?
Even if it's true, it isn't against the law to give out ideas. In fact it's a constitutional right.
Make money with Real Estate Investing
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney are in for at least $300 mil for setting a bad example for our youth by starting a violent unprovoked war in the middle east
CNN owes $500 mil for it's gratuitous, jingoistic, spoon-fed-propaganda coverage of the war
I figure that the parents of the kids gotta be in for about $2.5 billion apiece
And Joshua and William Buckner, since they are the ones who actually committed the crime, are in for $400 billion each.
Why sue the companies who produce games, but not the company who manufactured the gun that these kids used?
HH
--
It's a standard reaction on behalf of the parents and a sad one. There are kids who will go out and do terrible things, but violence is not exactly a new thing in human history. If anything, todays' societies are remarkably non-violent compared to past ones.
For the parents - especially of the killers - it's an attempt to find blame somewhere. I feel sorry for them: since Freud's time, parents have been told "you are responsible for the way your kids turn out", when in fact many studies show that parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.
There is violence in our genes, but it generally needs a certain kind of culture to bring it out. The place to look for the causes of such killings are the youth cultures these kids hung-out in. There is no evidence at all that violent games or movies influence children, but it seems clear that violent children prefer to express themselves through violent games, virtual or real.
Court cases like this resolve absolutely nothing, because they divert the discussion in meaningless directions. Let's ban all violent games and movies... OK, will that change anything? Take a look at (random selection from a large pool) Uganda, where the kids watch no movies at all, yet 10,000 young (5-12) killers roam the north.
It is very difficult to change a violent culture, but it is possible.
The first thing is to understand the way violence is propagated. Like all youth cultures, it goes from youth to youth, bypassing all adult control. You have to work at this level, thus.
The second thing is to understand how individuals get drawn into violent behaviour that reinforces itself and finally becomes habitual. Can a young man turn to authority for fair protection? If not, he is more likely to use his own force for self-protection. Can a young man who uses drugs turn to authority for help? If not, he is likely to resort to retribution and violence. Can a young man escape from a violent or oppressive environment? If not, he will eventually give up on himself and "go postal", taking his own life but first taking the lives of as many of his peers as he can, in an attempt to regain some face.
I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem.
Banning violent video games goes further in the wrong direction. Now we make criminals out of those youngsters who want such games. Excellent.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I usually rant on about how rediculous I find these lawsuits and get pissed about how people just can't seem to take accountability for their own actions. "Oh, Billy just shot you? It doesn't matter that I didn't train him proper firearm useage, had one readily available to him, and didn't teach him it's wrong. I'm suing a game company."
However...the part that REALLY scares me is the fact they're suing Sony because that was the console it was on. So when people start suing movie directors and studios for violent movies, does this mean they'll also be able to sue AMC theaters? Unfugginbelievable...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Aren't games that are rated mature supposed to be only purchased my adults? Can we then safely assume the childrens parents bought the game?
I've actually heard a mother in EB say something along the lines of "I'll be mother of the year when I buy my child this game" when buying GTA3.
Seriously when are we supposed to be able to know that hurting other people is bad? I would have thought that maybe around the age of 6-8 at the latest you are supposed to know that hurting people is bad.
Can't we ammend the law in these cases. Give the jury an two extra question, 1 do you think the parents should be put to death and 2 how long should we torture the lawyer.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Let me guess, this will end up like every other "blame the media" lawsuit whether it is against a rock band, a movie or in keeping with the times, a video game: thrown own of court by an eye-rolling judge or found laughable by an eye-rolling jury.
Parents: give it up, this tactic has never worked because it is damn near impossible to show causality for mass media that is digested by millions.
Yes, someone has to blame for your kid killing himself/someone else...but expand your definition of someone to include "that's life" and you'll might feel better about things. Millions of kids (many of which listen to, watch or play the thing you are blaming) do not end up this way. The few kids that do fall into a statistical expectation...either due to problems with their upbringing, their peers, their parents or their gray matter. Welcome to the world we live in.
I was thinking we should make a videogame where the mission objective is to kill ambulance-chasing lawyers.
What a recursion that would set off...
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
And the manufacturers of the gun which they used - which means the NRA shoudl back Sony on this one, for fear of setting a precedent they really wouldn't like.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I'm sure the plaintiffs will contend that merely rating the game as mature doesn't absolve the defendants of responsibility. They would propose that further steps could have been taken...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Well it would be a great idea, but shouldn't be needed.
.22 rifle the kids used could have had a gun lock and none of this would have happened. What makes you think that the parents who let kids stockpile guns in the garage or make .22 rifles easily accessable would bother locking out the M rated games on their PS2?
I mean yeah it's a nice feature in case the kid borrows the game from an older friend etc.
The point is that the kids should not have had access to that game.
Personaly I think this whole thing is BS. I played Wolfenstein when I was 9 or so, then moved up to Doom and Doom 2 when I was 13ish, Duke Nukem at 14, Quake at 15, I was in tournaments at 16 in Sin (won some nice money too..). At 21 now I still play FPS, although they're somewhat dull these days.
To date I have NOT had ANY desire to go out and kill random people. Sure there are some people that I would absolutley love to ventilate, but I always wanted to kill the few people that I passionatly hated, long before I touched a computer game.
My parents NEVER monitored which games I played, my parents NEVER monitored which movies I watched.
Yet I have NEVER had ANY problems with the law.
Seriously I think the ONLY influence that computer games had on me is that I drive faster than the vast majority of people due to years of addiction to Need For Speed and Motorhead(Play it! Best racing game ever.). I suppose this is a "bad" thing, but plenty of non gamers drive fast, and do it drunk or show off or do stupid shit.
The fact is that games alone don't make kids want to pick up a gun and kill people. Kids at 14 and 16 KNOW the difference between fantasy and reality. It's preposterous to suggest that they do not. I knew the difference between a game and RL at 7 when I played DukeNukem (the 2D version). And yeah sure I thought it would be cool to be a super tough guy and go and save the world. But I certainly did not think that I "was" the super tough guy. But then again I thought it was kind of cool to be Superman also but I never made any attempts to fly.
In the end I don't think the censoring will help. Why? Well it's like the gun locks. There are plenty availalbe, but parents still don't bother with them. The
In the end though, it's really the kid who is in control. I watched all the porn I wanted at 8, played all the violent games I wanted, there was always some alcohol in the house and never monitored, I had my first beer at 8 or so also, and I hated it. Still I never had any problems. I knew when I did "right" things and "wrong" things and I could tell the different levels of how "wrong" something. Plus I certainly had no trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality.
The whole point is:
STUPID KIDS DO STUPID SHIT
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
"There has been a wealth of research to show that children's brains process these video games in a different way from adults'. They cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality, so they play these games and then think if they do the same thing in reality, it's OK, there will be no consequences."
The problem with the above statement, made by Jack Thompson, attorney for the families, is that we're not talking about children here. At 14 and 16, the perpetrators of this crime are not children. Now I know that some people try to pretend that teenagers are children but they're really being dishonest and even deceitful when they do. Teenagers are not yet adults, but neither are they children. They are minors, but all that describes is their legal status, not their degree of maturity. Neither an 18 year old nor a 40 year old are minors, yet no one would try to claim that made them equally mature. The two young men in question are not children, they are adolescents, a stage in human development that is not usually given its due. For this lawywer to claim that someone that age is unable to discern reality from fantasy or understand the consequences of his or her actions shows a careless disregard for the truth or perhaps even an inability on the part of this lawyer to discern reality himself.
The left wing in this country have suceeded in creating an environment where no one is held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. The lamest of excuses, like "I saw it in a video game," or "I ate too many twinkies" are sucessfully used to deflect blame onto third parties.
Responsibility for this crime begins and ends with the two young men who perpetrated it. As far as the things that might have influenced them to commit the crime, why aren't their parents pointed out? If a video game can influence someone to do something so horrible, what does that say about how their parents have raised them?
The sad sick truth of this story is that Sony is being sued not because it is responsible for this in any way, but because it has deep pockets and is likely to settle out of court because it will cost them MORE money to fight it.
The only people who win in a case like this are lawywers, and they do so at the expense of society itself. Jack Thompson should be disbarred for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.
The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.
This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.
Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.
---
This was originally posted here but it got modded down even though it's factually correct.
The game store is supposed to check ID for MA-rated games. I think the question should be, "how did these kids come into posession of this game in the first place?"