Lawsuits That Changed the Games Industry

Gamasutra has up a piece looking at litigation that changed the way the games industry works. Deep, interesting questions like "Is modding legal?", "Are games covered by the 1st amendment?", and "Are games protected by copyright laws?" have all been decided in legal cases within the last 20 years. The site explores these issues, and ponders issues that are likely to affect the business of the games hobby in the future. From the article: "A variety of laws have been put forth by state legislature to act toward censoring game content or controlling the sale of games. As a rule, be immediately suspicious of any legislation proposed in the name of 'security' or 'protecting our children.' The result is often a jumbo size bite taken out of artistic expression and individual liberty. To date, the ESA has fought and won nine out of nine cases on these issues, having the state laws declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, the ESA has sought and won more than $1.5 million dollars in attorneys fees."

Comments

just waiting for it....

[ILuvRamen]

I know eventually someone's going to sue an MMOG for making them addicted. Probably someone related to those dumb fat people that sued McDonalds for "making" them fat. Ugh, some people. I think I should start a website where I take bets on how soon it'll happen lol. It'd at least be more entertaining than the "Protecting Our Children (from having fun)" bills.

Re:just waiting for it....

[Zancarius]

I suppose, then, that by implication, you cherish the notion of taking the "parent" out of "parenting." Fair enough, your argument didn't explicitly target children itself (save for the McDonald's commentary).

The problem with shifting responsibility from individuals to the law is that it eliminates the freedom of choice. If someone wants to sit on their duff for hours on end, they are free to do so. While I am aware that the natural reply to such a notion is "It increases the costs of health care for all of us," I will remind you that health care in the US is already largely borked. Legislation against criminal activities is fine, but criminalizing legitimate activities that do not directly harm anyone, such as playing games or eating fattening food, is simply absurd. Suing, thus, accomplishes nothing than to appease those who, like yourself, clearly do not approve of free choice or the free market. I don't recall stories of Blizzard holding a gun to anyone's head, indicating that failure to play their game may result in unholy punishment (insert lame joke here, Anonymous Cowards).

Ultimately, the "health legislation" movement in this country is counter-productive. While stating children shouldn't be sitting in front of the television, game console, computer, or eating fast food, they simultaneously declare that traditional children's games are violent and dangerous. I'm sorry, little Johnny, I don't want you playing video games, but you can't go outside and play tag, either! I don't think tree-hugging burns a great deal of calories--certainly not as many as cutting one down with a hand saw. And could you imagine the sort of ruckus that would be generated by the bleeding hearts if we armed our children with hand saws? On the other hand, it might not be so bad; imagine telling an angry child armed with a hand saw who was responsible for taking away tag or dodgeball...

I apologize ahead of time for any angry children cutting down your front door, demanding to have their "fun" games back.

Re:just waiting for it....

[DingerX]

Here's another way to put the "Children and McDonalds" argument:

We both agree that a parent has absolute responsibility for child raising. I would go further and say that, in all matters except those effecting the physical, psychological and social well-being of the child (health, education), the parents have the right to parent their child without undue influence from undesirable influences, particularly those opposed to the physical, psychological and social well-being of the child. This is why there are ordnances against putting adult book stores, saloons and rehab clinics next door to grammar schools.
So what gives any company the right to interfere with my relationship with my child solely to make a buck? Free speech? That's for adults.

It's not the "Think of the Children" argument: A "Think of the Children" argument is a combination of an appeal to sentimentality with a slippery slope. "To protect our children against predators, pornographers and the bad kids at school, we need to spy on every citizen's internet use" -- here the fear and threat of crime or undesirable behavior on children is used to justify enacting a nanny state. A "Think of the Children" version of the McDonalds argument is: "McDonalds advertising targeting children interferes with the parent-child relationship in a deleterious manner. Therefore, we must ban all advertising."

Or a simpler way of putting it: if I walked up to a random kid on they way to school and told her to drink beer, most people would condemn that: "who the hell are you to tell my kid what to do?!" But we let companies get away with it? Whose liberties are you protecting? My liberty to undue influence from the government and corporations seeking to make a buck off me, or the liberty of these fictional entities to exploit my ass?

In any case, my argument wasn't that we ban McDonalds or even their advertisement, but rather that a lawsuit against a MMORPG would be even stronger than that against McDonalds. Let's take your quote:

he state should NOT be there to hold a person's hand all throughout their life so they dont' make bad decisions such as getting addicted to things. It should be there to make sure the person's rights are not violated, but beyond that not much more. If a person decides to get addicted to X game, and ruins their entire life because of said game, that is not the game makers fault, only the person who got addicted.

.

Alright, let expand the X a bit. How about drugs? I'm in favor of legalizing drugs, incidentally, just so you don't misunderstand my point:
A company develops a new drug, let's call it "Crystal Meth". The company knows, from clinical trials and the social history of similar drugs, that Crystal Meth is extremely addictive and will effectively ruin the lives of a sizable percentage of the people who use it. The company then markets Crystal Meth as an alternative to coffee and places it on the supermarket shelves next to coffee, with massive ad campaigns and promotions.

So, on your logic, 'if a person decides to get addicted to Crystal Meth, and ruins their entire life because of Crystal Meth, that is not the fault of the company that A) knew this would happen, B) did nothing to inform their consumers of the real health dangers their product posed and C) did everything to prevent their consumers from learning about those health dangers, but rather the person who decided to take Crystal Meth.'

There are laws against selling rat poison as kiddie candy: for a person to make a rational, informed decision, that person has to be both rational (hence not a child) and capable of informing himself on the product. Suppress either one of those, and you suppress the notion of liberty.