Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees

I Said More Ham writes "Minnesota's attorney general will drop the state's efforts to fine underage buyers of violent videogames after a high court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses."

Comments

So what's the point of having ratings?

[NMBLNG]

So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, why do movies have ratings?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[maglor_83]

So that parents can have some idea of the content in the games they buy their children. And stores can implement policies preventing the sale of violent games to minors independent of the government.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Vectronic]

ooh ooh...my turn...

Why does food have listed ingredients?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[SomeJoel]

Movies have ratings for two reasons. The first is a guideline for parents to see whether or not a particular movie should be watched by their kids. The second is that it is illegal for a movie theater to allow unaccompanied children into movies with R (or higher) ratings. The games' ratings really only take care of the former. The latter could conceivably be enforced in an arcade, but most games these days are not played in arcades.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[m0rph3us0]

To provide the customer an objective analysis of things they or the party they are purchasing for may find offensive in the game before purchasing the game in an effort to reduce returns or unsatisfactory feelings arising from the purchase.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[CaptainNerdCave]

obviously, because you don't _think_of_the_children_, you must be a terrorist. the proper channels have been notified and you will be swarmed by federal agents shortly.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[FriendComputer]

So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place?

Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

Presumably the repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games is that they're punished when their parents find out. Voluntary ratings systems ostensibly exist to inform the consumer about content, not to restrict it. Methods of enforcement are left up to the end users.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Adambomb]

So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.

If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.

Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.

Do apologize if you're wrong though.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[m0rph3us0]

This is false. It is not illegal, it contravenes the contract the most movie theaters have in place with the distributor.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're wrong here. It isn't illegal for an unaccompanied child to watch an R rating (at least in my state). It IS standard policy at movie theatres to forbid under 18 viewers of R movies, but it isn't a legal requirement.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[LoganDzwon]

+1 I was just trying how to write his properly. Also, the age of consent is 17 in the movie world.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. If you were underage, all you need is an older "friend" (or a parent who lets you buy GTA:SA even after the salesperson informs the parent that its now "A" rated due to the Hot Coffee hack, which I saw happen) and your golden.

Being in Arizona, I don't know of any laws or regulations that prevent the sales of "M" games to minors. All that we have it at the register if a "M" game is scanned, it asks if the buyer is 18. Most of the time sales people don't care or assumes your 18 anyway.

I do think we need to have some regulation regarding "M" games. That regulation I think starts with the parents. I'm tired of hearing all these stories about parents freaking out about violence in video games and such, when they don't watch and understand what their kids are playing in the first place!

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[CyprusBlue113]

Possibly to inform the parents that should be making the purchase to begin with?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[shadylookin]

To give parents who don't have time to play video games a general idea of the type of content in them so they can make a somewhat informed decision about whether they want their children to play the game. If nothing else it certainly wasn't made so the government could fine children $25 unconstitutionally.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Strilanc]

The same reason insulation must display a resistivity value: so the customer knows what the hell they're buying. It might not be illegal to sell mature games to young kids, but it's illegal to put a teen rating on those games (or it should be!).

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure terrorists think children make fantastic targets. So even they are "thinking of the children".

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

Just because there are no legal repercussions, doesn't mean there are no repercussions. Likewise, if your kids watch an X rated movie, the police don't bust them, but you might ground them. It's the job of the parents to raise kids, not the police.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[CastrTroy]

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the parents to do a little research on the game to figure out of it was right for their kids? OK, it probably wouldn't be just as easy, but the parents could make a much better judgement call if they downloaded the demo, or just went to a few review sites to see what the game was like. Instead of trusting the ratings blindly.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[CastrTroy]

What if a 14 year old buys himself an M rated game for the DS? A kid could easily hide a DS game and never have his parents find out about it. Also, while only playing while outside the house, it would be pretty difficult for his parents to catch him playing.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably true, but having extra information is better than no information even if the ratings aren't the complete picture. Better for a mother dragged into the video game store by her 11-year old son have some idea what he's buying than no idea.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Xzzy]

This is America, no one's responsible for themselves anymore.

If something doesn't have oversight set up to protect you from yourself, it's only a matter of time before it does.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[jlarocco]

Who cares? I sure as hell don't. Your kid, *your* responsibility.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is not about parents being fined for buying video games for their kids. It is about kids getting fined for buying video games. The kids are probably buying the games without their parent's consent anyway, so how is the parent supposed to do research. If the parent was fine with the game, they could go into the store and buy it themselves (or with their child). It seems like this is to try to give parents more control over what their kids do. Just like a parent is allowed to give their own kid alcohol in their own house, but the kid is not allowed to buy alcohol for themself. It allows a parent to make the decision what is right and wrong for their kid.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Thugthrasher]

That would be a best case scenario. But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you." Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Opportunist]

So the only thing ratings do is allow parents to determine whether a film is suitable for their kids?

Sounds good, let's keep it that way.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't want you in my society either?

So who's going to leave?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Belial6]

No, it wouldn't be just as easy, or even come close to working. Shopping often involves looking at what a store has BEFORE you make a decision. Your method would require the parent to download demos of EVERY game ever produced, so that when they showed up at the store, the parent would already know what each and every game on the shelf is like. This doesn't even bring in the issue of consoles, which would require the parent to go out and rent every single game released so that they would be prepared when their kids decide on it at the store. Demos for consoles are few and far between after all.

Now, you may be suggesting that parents and kids make two trips to the store for any one game purchase. The first one is to see what the store has, and then the parent and kid drive home (to the rental store if it is a console game) and the parent sits down and tries the game that they are considering buying. After the parent has put many many hours into the game to check for inappropriate material, they can then drive back to the store with their kid to make the purchase.

Now, I'm not in favor of censorship in games any more than movies, I know that many people would be horrified at some of the material that I expose my child to, and I am under the opinion that most parents do a crappy job paying attention to what their kids are exposed to, BUT your suggestion is simply unworkable. Generally, the responsible parent, either buys the game and takes it away if they find it objectionable, they try to figure it out based on the information on the box, or a combination of the two.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Opportunist]

It ain't that easy.

Do you remember the Quake ad? Unfortunately I can't find that picture online, but it depicted one of those "ideal families", mommy, daddy, two kids, gathered around the computer, all smiling, the only thing that was missing was some sort of halo around them to make it a poster for some religious group.

Now imagine someone buying Quake based on that ad.

But even aside of ads, it isn't easy to find real information about a game online. If anything, you get opinions, praise and slander alike, but really little info what it's about. You also can't say that you go by producer, there is no studio that produces "only" a certain kind of games. Playing it yourself may also yield no sensible information within a few hours, or at least can't rule out that sooner or later you run into something you don't want your kids to see.

Not to mention that there are few parents who actually play well enough to get far...

So I do see ratings as a good thing to give parents guidelines. What's important, though, is to also note why a game got a certain rating. Why has a game a certain rating? Violence? Sex? Drug use? Language? I think I'm not alone when I say that a PG13 (language) is not the same for me as a PG13 (violence). I laugh at the former, you hear worse on the average schoolyard. I would at least take a look at the latter.

But what stands is that the final arbiter when it comes to what a kid can or can't see is the parents. No state, no government, no "opinion group", no lobbyist, no organisation, no company.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[xstonedogx]

The ratings are a very convenient first step. If it is rated M, I know it is not okay for my daughter; no need to look into it. If it is rated E, I know it is probably okay. I'll still look into it, but being able to "eyeball" and rule out an entire class of games makes life easier. On top of that, once the games are home, it's easier to set clear boundaries. My kid knows that any games rated E that I've allowed in our house are fair game, but that games rated M or whatever are daddy's games.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Opportunist]

Yeah, I agree. I bought this Barney game and only fond out after buying it that you can't blow off that freak's head. If it had a rating, telling me it is suitable for kids, I could have avoided it!

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Opportunist]

Time to tell your kid about the birds and the bees, or do you want some hentai game to do the job for you? I mean, he could start wondering why his doodle ain't vanishing when it gets hard.

How about a completely radical and novel idea, like... I dunno, preparing kids for the real life instead of trying to shelter them from it?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

Perhaps that's because there are no real consequences. Children should not be considered programmable devices.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[kitsunewarlock]

Because allergins can lead to severe medical problems?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[jmac1492]

Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Unless you have sex with her, you're not committing statutory rape.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[MBGMorden]

If he's 14, then I really don't care. Personally, by the time a kid is 14, I think we're past any content that's gonna harm him. By that age you're wrapping up the whole parenting gig and getting ready to send them out alone to find out the rest. A video game isn't going to screw them up at that point if they're not already there.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[KGIII]

Holding parents responsible? Pfft! We can't do THAT now can we?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[KGIII]

Sex is well defined so I'm gonna call you an idiot. Please don't be offended. Really you're just ignorant and, for that, I don't blame you. "Digital penetration" is one such example where coitus did not occur but is still a violation of various laws. For instance, to take what you said, "Well, she was 4 and we "didn't have sex" so it isn't illegal." (Sorry to pick on you and I'm pretty sure you're probably not a child molester but good luck telling the folks after they've read your last post.)

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[R3d M3rcury]

I agree, though I think the ratings are a good thing in that they gave you probably a quick idea as to whether or not you should do the extra work.

If I had kids, I would have no problem with them seeing a 'G' rated movie. If my eight-year-old wanted to go see a 'PG' movie, I might at least check it out, where I wouldn't if my 13-year-old wanted to see it. If my 15-year-old kid wanted to see an 'R' rated movie, I'd want to see whether it was worth going with him.

The ratings system can give you a quick reference. No, it's not perfect and we can all come up with plenty of examples of it's imperfections.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Acapulco]

In Mexico, the ratings are used by movie theatres for access. If you don't show ID you won't get to see the "C" movies (unless of course you look like you are old enough).

And it's actually backed up by law, so, in theory (a very big "in theory"), the state can prosecute those movie theatres that let minors inside a restricted movie.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[andymadigan]

They can also decide not to let their kids go to the video game store in the first place.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Creepy Crawler]

Hell, when I was younger, I sure didnt ask to get some "mature game". That mark wasnt even around then. You bought/downloaded/copied a game to see if it was good.

Whoops. That Leisure Suit Larry is mature, I guess. Oh well.

These days, people just download what they cant buy. If 16 yr old cant buy said game, just rip it from piratebay. Really, who cares?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Chees0rz]

I remember running into wal-mart 'real quick' to buy Diablo II when I was younger. The cash register reminded the woman to card me, so not only did I have to get my dad from out of the car, but I had to give him the money to give to her (a little extreme). Anyway, my parents never cared what I played because they trusted me, and I was open about it. Kids are either going to sneak it, or they are going to have an open conversation with their parents. Denying kids to go off and purchase whatever they want at least promotes the latter some of the time.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[xalorous]

Which is exactly the point. Ultimately parents are responsible for their children, and they should be held accountable.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[xalorous]

Ratings are there so that sales clerks and parents can stop children from buying inappropriate items.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But even aside of ads, it isn't easy to find real information about a game online. If anything, you get opinions, praise and slander alike, but really little info what it's about. You also can't say that you go by producer, there is no studio that produces "only" a certain kind of games. Playing it yourself may also yield no sensible information within a few hours, or at least can't rule out that sooner or later you run into something you don't want your kids to see."

THIS IS JUST SO NOT TRUE. IDIOT!

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Jurily]

Sex is well defined

Bill Clinton said otherwise.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[ipaddressfinding]

Uh, why do movies have ratings?

So "NC-17" movies can be rendered financially untenable and getting an "R" rating involves dealing with a secretive private committee of short sighted inconsistent morons who answer to no one all because of the threat of congress unconstitutionally taking regulation of movies into it's own hands?
--
IP Finding

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[cliffski]

really?
You are postulating that an interactive media will not affect behaviour past age 14?
Whereas everyone on earth would accept that a passive media (advertising) has a massive effect on the behaviour of people of all ages. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
It may have *less* effect, but it DEFINITELY has some effect.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be just as easy for the parents to do a little research on the game to figure out of it was right for their kids? OK, it probably wouldn't be just as easy, but the parents could make a much better judgement call if they downloaded the demo, or just went to a few review sites to see what the game was like. Instead of trusting the ratings blindly.

So, when you are in the store, and your kids find the last copy of a game that they just decided they want, you download the demo to your laptop, and play it right there in the shop, while the 25 other kids who also want the game just have to wait for you to finish playing, and decide if you are going to buy the game or not?

Do all parents these days know how to install and play a game demo? Where to find and download it? Do they have laptops, or would the need to wait until they get home (with the screaming kids who didn't get the game - not because it was inappropriate, but because "we don't know), and come back next week, when the selection of games is different, and the kids want a different game?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[leuk_he]

Then sell them alcohol.

before you know it the analogy police is going to get you!

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Lunarsight]

Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.

Therein lies the problem - there are a lot of 'not responsible' parents out there.

I play Grand Theft Auto IV online via X-Box Live, and a lot of the people playing sound WAY too young to be playing it.

Ironically enough, it's often the high-pitched ones that sound like they're barely out of grade school that are the biggest troublemakers. Some of them cuss more foully than the adults do! (It's not to say the adults won't shoot you dead, but they're typically more polite about it.)

If a parent thinks their kid is mature enough to handle a game like this, then I'm okay with them buying it on their behalf. But I'll level with you - I don't think many parents know their kids half as well as they think they do, and some don't even make the effort to 'know' them at all.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops. That Leisure Suit Larry is mature,

Leisure Suit Larry is actually pretty immature!

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the point is that they don't have to have the ability to fine a child to refuse to sell them something. It just means that if they get away with it at the point of sale, they're in the clear.

What good would it do to go around fining kids? It's hardly going to cure the apparently horrible things they're seeing. Would you fine a child for hurting himself after playing somewhere dangerous? No, you'd do your best to stop the child from going there in the first place, and tell him not to do it again. Of course, neither is guaranteed to work, but we don't live in a world of certainties.

I'm not sure there's much parents can do to stop a kid going into a shop and trying to buy something he or she shouldn't, other than trying to instil a set of values. Keeping teenagers under 24-hour supervision isn't exactly a realistic or desirable strategy.

I'm not a parent, though.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Talderas]

The last I checked the ESRB ratings on games also contain subsections with the particular categories that warranted the rating, such as blood, violence, excessive language...

The ESRB ratings do provide a lot of information to parents, and I've found that in most cases the ratings are extremely conservative. Simply put, the ratings are there to help parents make the decisions on whether their children should get a game.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Von Helmet]

Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.

I'm going to be slightly pedantic and point out that a food intolerance is very different to a food allergy. Food intolerances typically just cause you a lot of paid, food allergies can kill you. Lactose intolerance generally just gives you a sore stomach or maybe the runs. A full blown milk allergy would be the sort of thing that could kill you. It's a common misconception - I only really know the difference because my wife is lactose intolerant. This leads on to...

I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.

The comparison could get interesting at this point. If you regard children as having some sort of intolerance to violence, etc, then the comparison holds - we don't restrict access to things that we're merely intolerant to and the responsibility rests with the consumer. However, if we regard violence in the media as something to which children are allergic and which could result in death (be it theirs, or whoever they choose to kill while under the influence of GTA or whatever), which is arguably how things are treated, then we find ourselves in a position which is harder to compare to food allergies. It would be like saying that a shopkeeper can't legally sell, say, peanut butter to someone that they know has a severe peanut allergy, because it will likely end in death. I wonder what the legal position would be on that one?

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[loafula]

If a parent thinks their kid is mature enough to handle a game like this, then I'm okay with them buying it on their behalf. But I'll level with you - I don't think many parents know their kids half as well as they think they do, and some don't even make the effort to 'know' them at all.

Then these kids have far more to worry about than video games.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[ShannaraFan]

I play Call Of Duty on Xbox Live - those same kids make for some of the most UNPLEASANT games, sometimes to the point where I just leave and find another. If they're not competing to see who can say the most curse words in a single game, they're whining, or singing, or just doing SOMETHING to be intentionally irritating.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then these kids have far more to worry about than video games."

such as a severe lack of chocolate milk.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LWnyUtdcboc

Wakka wakka wakka

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[mdwh2]

The point about advertising is a common one brought up in these debates - but clearly, no one is saying that things we see can have absolutely no effect on us whatsoever.

But it is flawed logic to see that "Because X affects us in this way, it's true to say that Y affects us in a completely different way".

Now, I'm not sure what my view is on any affects of a 14 year old seeing some naughty pics, but I'm not sure that whatever claims being made are in anyway comparable to be hearing about a new product that I might want to buy.

Another flaw with this argument is: if adverts are so similar, then why don't we ban those for children? There is far more sexualisation and stereotyping of women that comes in mainstream marketing, that is far more widespread and harder to avoid than the problem or a few naughty pics of red pixels in a computer game.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Vexor]

You may be allergic to peanuts. How would you know if a product contained them or not without the listed ingredients? The parents are responsible for their kids. If you're letting your 14yr old walk into a store and buy GTAIV maybe you better reconsider where your fingers are pointing.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Talderas]

The years just before going into the real world are the most crucial. This is when the kid really starts to think he knows everything when he doesn't. They're the most independent of the dependent years. You must still parent them until you're confident the kid isn't going to make some bone-head move, like join a gang.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[chemisus]

They are one of the main reasons why I quit playing halo on xbox live. That and the obvious hacking.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[kungfugleek]

But what should stand is that the final arbiter when it comes to what a kid can or can't see is the parents.

Fixed it for you.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[CauseWithoutARebel]

There's a causal link between decreased motor and mental faculties and alcohol, and between cigarette smoke and various diseases. Hence the prohibition on selling them to people who, in theory, are unable to make an appropriate decision regarding the use of those products because they haven't reached the ages of 18 and 21 where magical fairy-thinking kicks in and you suddenly gain 50 IQ points so that...

OK, wait... tangent there...

Anyway, the whole argument here is that the state couldn't prove a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, which was the argument they used to justify the law.

I have been deputized by the analogy police so you're under arrest. No slashdot for you for three days!

What's more interesting is the ruling that video games are protected speech, effectively making it impossible for the state to restrict them at all.

I wonder why gouging eyes out and decapitation is "protected speech" but crude language isn't... in theory, you could publicly display a game of Manhunt.... but you'd have to censor the swearing.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Theoboley]

Why do they have ratings? So people working in stores I.E. Gamestop actually look at the games and look at an 8 year old kid and say ..HEY!!! you're not 18 years old you can't buy this. (or at least they should) I don't know of any kid getting arrested for going into an R Rated movie. Besides, with the way TV is now days, 90% of kids are desensitized to violence/sex/drug usage anyhow. (90% is not an actual figure, it's an exaggeration)

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded this "Offtopic", read it again. It addresses whether government and/or industry groups should be used to rate video games (among other things) instead of placing that burden on individuals (such as parents). This post violates Libertarian group-think, but it is very much on-topic.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[BarryJacobsen]

The same reason insulation must display a resistivity value: so the customer knows what the hell they're buying. It might not be illegal to sell mature games to young kids, but it's illegal to put a teen rating on those games (or it should be!).

So you think it should be illegal to put an arbitrary rating on the game other than the arbitrary rating decided by some (arbitrary) people?

While I'd agree with you if the box says "Contains no violence" when the game does in fact contain violence as that is clearly mislabeling a product. However, something being labeled that it is acceptable for a teen is a rather arbitrary distinction.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[lessermilton]

Except then the muscle behind the DMCA would come after you!




Then you'd wish you could decapitate someone :P

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Proteus]

if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you."

Sorry to pick on you*, but while this is oodles more reasonable than most parents, it still misses the point of parenthood by a huge margin.

The core responsibility of a parent is to turn your kids into responsible and healthy adults. Sometimes, true, this means protecting them or making decisions on their behalf; but telling a 15-year-old kid "let me research this rated-M game and I'll decide for you" is inane.

How about "let's do some research together (maybe play a demo) and see if it's something we can both be comfortable with you playing." Parents who do this will often find that the kid does a pretty good job of aligning their own standards to their parent's, and will rarely have to pull the "now, see, I'm not real comfortable with you playing a game that has that level of gore" card (after the first couple of times).

The root problem is that parents spend far too much effort trying to "protect" their children, instead of helping (teaching) the kids to make decisions that the parents find acceptable. All that happens is that the kids buy (or steal) the games on their own, and play them when unsupervised. And when they get out of the house and on their own, they're not equipped to make any kind of ethical decisions for themselves -- and then they let the lobbies and the media outlets make these choices for them.

</rant>

*But only a little

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[uniquename72]

In Nevada she'd have to be 15 for it to be statutory rape.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[Antimatter3009]

Mute is your friend.

Re:So what's the point of having ratings?

[kitsunewarlock]

However there are many cases in which allergens are not so easily found. It is the person's responsibility to know if they are lactose intolerant, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to find out if a product does or does not contain dairy. It is easier to sell to someone with these allergens if the products are listed (it is, in a big way, a service), so the consumer with allergens can splurge shop without having to stop before buying anything to check the internet, a book, etc... to ensure their favorite product does not contain milk and/or meat and/or nuts and/or MSG.

Unfortunately, the same goes for Video Games and movies. If one video game has no rating listed on the box, and another has E (for everyone), the parent is more likely to choose the "E" rated box. Children, Teens and Adults probably wouldn't care (and in our modern society may even be more likely to pick up the unrated game).

But yes, the shop keeper and ESPECIALLY the state should not keep media out of the hands of particular individuals based on a cultural standard that may or may not apply to that individual. A 16 year old from China will have a different view on pornography than a 16 year old from the states. At the same time, a 16 year old from the stats will have a more leniant view on a game in which the hero is a happy-go-lucky skeleton than a 16 year old in a traditional Chinese house hold where exposed human bones are considered highly taboo. And, for better or worse, America has been set up (in theory) to allow for people of any (major?) culture to be able to adapt to whatever government standard is set forth. But the truth is, there is no universal standard...

In related news....

[TornCityVenz]

As the lawyer was leaving he was pulled from his BMW and thrown to the street as a 15 year old told him what for..as he jacked his car and ran over a hooker leaving the garage.

Re:In related news....

[LoganDzwon]

too bad that 15 year didn't have GTA to play. He would have known to have sex with the hooker first.

Re:In related news....

[Thanshin]

too bad that 15 year didn't have GTA to play. He would have known to have sex with the hooker first.

However he did have Larry. That's how he knew to avoid sex with the hooker at all cost.

The money goes to lawyers!!!

[lazyDog86]

The money goes to the lawyers, not the game companies. That's just not right. Game companies are paragons of virtue. But lawyers, man, they just make me hope that I find an RPG on a rooftop and a couple of handgrenades in an alley so can run them down in the street and frag those lawyers.

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the size of the legal fees the game companies asked to have the state cover I'd say the state got quite a bargain.

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Utopia called, they want their ideas back.

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[Linuss]

All hail captain obvious!

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The hand grenades I can see, but what would you do with the role-playing game?

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[Torvaun]

Write code!

Re:The money goes to lawyers!!!

[PhxBlue]

Of course money doesn't go to the game companies. If they want money, they'll have to go to court and show actual damages -- and since they probably weren't selling M-rated games to minors in the first place, that would be a pretty tall order.

Oh Boy now I'm a babysitter!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about my right to play M-rated games online without prepubescent rants about how my mother is a slut who sleeps with any guy who can pwn her n00b of a son who can't even sploit his way to the 1337 sn1p3r spots? Or listen to little Billy discuss how he discovered the joys of masturbation!

Thanks Minnesota attorney general. You really saved the day, you jackass.

Re:Oh Boy now I'm a babysitter!

[osu-neko]

Hehe. Well, it's the job of the Attorney General to enforce the law. When Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed the law, it was incumbent upon the state's offices to pursue it. Now that the courts have struck it down, those same people should act accordingly, unless they really feel that it's worth pursuing further. In this case, it really isn't. Good for Lori Swanson for recognizing that and not dragging this through the courts further.

Remind me why this feels right

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal-geeks: Why aren't these video games classified as commercial speech? They are envisioned and produced much like hollywood movies.

I can understand when an individual works on a game of their own that it would be classified as free speech. I can't understand how corporate-game-development-sweat-shop output can be other than commercial speech.

Not that I want the game industry to be anything but self-regulated. I'm just curious why the legal system has suprised me and ended up with the right outcome in this case (even down to the paltry lawyer fees!).

Re:Remind me why this feels right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you're a bit hazy on the concept of free speech.

No, it does not mean that it's released under the GPL.

Re:Remind me why this feels right

[cpt kangarooski]

It wouldn't be commercial speech because it is a work of art; it doesn't matter who created it, or what their motivations were. Commercial speech generally consists of things like advertisements, which are more focused on encouraging the audience to engage in some sort of economic activity directly related to the speech.

Anyway, I doubt it would matter. First, the commercial speech doctrine lacks much of a foundation, and the idea of uniquely significant limitations on speech merely because it is commercial in nature may not last much longer, given current trends and weak legal rationales for preserving it. Second, commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment even now, provided that it is not misleading and concerns lawful activity (which, in the case of a game, would be the playing of the game, rather than emulating in real life the things that happen within the game). Such protected speech can only be regulated by the government if there is a substantial government interest in doing so, where the regulation achieves its goal but is no broader than necessary.

Your tax money at work!

[Opportunist]

Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Harmonious Botch]

Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

Actually, the money was spent very efficiently. It gave Pawlenty national exposure as the good guy fighting evil and protecting the children. And at a very convenient time, just when McCain sewed up the nomination and it became obvious that he might need a more straight party line guy as his VP.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Opportunist]

Care to tell me what my benefit is?

If anything, it told me that Pawlenty guy wastes my tax money. Now, I don't know him, but should he be a politician, I wouldn't vote for him. What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[homer_s]

What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

And how would a politician know "where it's put best to help the economy recover"?
Even if he/she was a good honest person with no special interests pushing him/her in one direction, how would that person have all the necessary information to make a wise decision?
Look at the mess they made with ethanol.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Opportunist]

Of course you can't predict with certainty which projects are "good" for the economy. But it doesn't take a genius to know what kind of projects aren't. Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?

What this reeks of is a cheap (or rather, not so cheap) attempt to appear hardcore and protective of our kids. Why people consider this a good thing is beyond me. What your kids may or may not do should be first of all your business. That's what parenting is all about. If you don't want to be a parent and take that responsibility, don't have kids.

It's time people realize that they don't only have rights but also responsibilities. Back in my days (write larger, btw, it's hard for us old folks to read that 10pt fonts), that's something we learned early on. Our parents, who deserved that name, made sure we learned that well. You're responsible for your actions. You're responsible for the people you're, well, responsible for. Maybe mandatory military service ain't so bad, it tells you something about taking responsibility. At least I learned a lot about it... but I ramble.

I don't want a politician that tries to take responsibility from me. When you hand over responsibility, you invariably hand over freedom as well. They are linked to each other. With freedom comes responsibility.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[T3Tech]

Exactly, had the legislature been doing their job to begin with and not passing laws that fail to pass Constitutional muster, the government wouldn't have wasted thousands of dollars in tax money.
Hmmm.. kinda the same issue with the DC/Heller thing.

Although, more to blame than .gov and the legislators are the people that think .gov is the be-all and end-all arbiter/solver/fixer of societal ills; along with those who vote for elected officials that hold such a nannystate philosophy, if there be such a separate group of people.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[homer_s]

Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?

What made you think that I thought this suit was a good idea? Really, my response was just to this one statement of yours:

What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

And my point was that there is no one person (or a group of people) who can determine which projects are good and what is bad. It takes the collective intelligence of people brought together by the price system and profit signals to determine where to invest and how much.

Here is Friedman explaining this better than I ever could.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, military service teaches you that slaughtering strangers gives your nation purpose.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Opportunist]

As stated above, if you get rid of responsibility, you also invariable have to hand over freedoms. Why someone would want to do that is beyond me.

My theory is that people follow this train of thought: "I don't play games/watch $genre/use the internet, so if they regulate it it's fine by me, since I don't have to take care that my kids don't play violent games/watch $genre/get lured by some molester".

So the only solution would be to get more people online, more people to play games, more people to watch porn... If you want a policy to be unpopular, make sure many people support the opposite.

By that logic, though, every smoker should do his best to convince someone to start it... hmm... I gotta rethink that, I guess.

Re:Your tax money at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

military service teaches you that slaughtering strangers gives your nation purpose.

This is a lie. You are a liar.

Interesting to see other plaintiffs here:

[Fluffeh]

Considering that the "Entertainment Software Association" was listed as one plaintiff, it seems that this case was not levied in reality against the "buyers" but against the "sellers" of the software. Well, not actually even the sellers, but people associated with the selling and manufacture.

I am just a silly Slashie, but it seems to be like trying to sue the Motion Picture Association of America for when some kids sneak into cinema to watch an M rated movie if they are a few months shy of the age limit. Maybe sue Paramount because some teenage girls ducked in and saw Johnny Depp in Pirates III?

*slap forehead*

Re:Interesting to see other plaintiffs here:

[lazyDog86]

Ummm...I think that you might be confusing plaintiffs with defendants.

The ESA sued the Minnesota AG, as a proxy for the state. The analogy here would be that this is like being sued by the MPAA. It is my understanding that that is something to be avoided. Perhaps the lesson here is that being sued by the ESA is also to be avoided.

Re:Interesting to see other plaintiffs here:

[Anonymous Coward]

All three of the Pirates of the Carribean movies are PG-13, so by definition any teenage girl would satisfy the age recomendation.

What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[Joce640k]

Why not lock up the parents who allow their offspring to possess "mature" material.

Enforcement of parenting skills would go a lot further than trying to ban everything in sight.

I wonder if the religious do-gooders who started this suit will have to foot the bill personally.

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[spydabyte]

What kind of law is that? One of morale judgment? I'm not going to get started into laws, but the parents are not doing anything illegal. They're making the decision we, the United States, have decided to give them once they have lived for 18 years. We've stated that once you've been alive for 18 years then you are physically and mentally mature enough to understand the situation you make your conscious decision in.

Whether or not that's correct or not is a whole other ball game.

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[Opportunist]

Who the heck are you to tell me how to raise my kids and what I may or may not show them?

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforcement?
No, no, no.
ENCOURAGEMENT of Parenting Skills.

You cannot enforce something that does not exist, but you can encourage it to develop.

-another person who forgot his password...

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[Aphoxema]

If you imprison parents, who's going to watch their kids?

Parents have the right to raise their children any way they want, and stepping back outside of the imagination of morals, it's the point of the more darwinian aspect of intelligent life to leave it to parents to make the decisions they want.

If their children then 'succeed at life', then they're influence may have helped. If their children 'fail at life', then that's just nature taking it's course.

We can't have winners without losers, and worse, we can hardly predict who will be what.

How can one person judge another to do what's right when no one's judged them but themselves?

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Because such a law is just as nanny-state a policy as fining these kids. Either way, it's the government trying to tell parents how to raise their children.

Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents

[porcupine8]

Why not lock up the parents who allow their offspring to possess "mature" material.

Ok, you go lock up the parents of every teenage boy (or girl) who possesses some form of pornography.

Let's see how well our economy continues to function once 80-90% of our citizens age 35-55 are in jail...

Post needs tags...

[IonOtter]

Suddenoutbreakofcommonsense and Haha

Does this mean minors can now buy porno, too?

[BobMcD]

I mean, there's no provable, causal link between violence and porno either. AND porno has been found, time and time again, to BE protected.

There's something schizophrenic going on here...

Re:Does this mean minors can now buy porno, too?

[Opportunist]

Sure it is. For some odd reason it's more acceptable to show how people hurt each other than to show how people pleasure each other.

Don't ask me why. But take the average PG13 action movie, with gunfights, people "dying", explosions... if you showed the same detail in sex, the movie would get an M. If it wasn't outlawed for too extreme display of weird sexual practices in the first place.

Re:I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Control freak. Your kids will become more obsessed with it because it is "forbidden." Too bad you won't learn that until it's too late.

Re:I think...

[CyberData4]

You had me until the last sentence. Keep in mind, you're posting on /. Don't call others nerds in a derogatory fashion, it just reeks of 'pot, kettle, black....'

Film Ratings in the USA are not enforced by law

[bigbigbison]

Every time videogame rating laws come up people ask why they shouldn't be legally enforced the way film ratings are. This is an incorrect assumption.

In the USA films are rated by the MPAA which is a trade association of the film industry, not a government agency. The film ratings are enforced by the MPAA themselves not by law. States or the federal government do not enforce the ratings. There is no state or national law preventing the sale of R-rated films to minors.

This is the same situation as videogame ratings. The games are rated by the industry and enforced by the industry.

Correct...

[Firethorn]

Most people don't realize this, but the whole movie rating system is contractual in nature.

Though the cynics like me will point out that it was done to AVOID stuff like this where the government tries to make it mandatory. Laws and court battles are expensive. Criminal charges are outright crazy, but look at alcohol laws - they didn't want a situation where allowing a minor to see an R rated movie would be a felony.

So they regulate themselves a bit. Besides which, I think that most stores do the same thing with 'adult' video games, so why the big deal?

Then again, we STILL have people who think that prohibition is a good thing, who think that violent video games create violent kids*. Heck, kinda like the hoopla about dungeons & dragons back in the day.

Of course, my parents generally didn't care about the rating system. I was allowed to rent whatever I liked from the rental store, to the point of getting a permission slip from my parents to allow me to rent R rated movies as a young teen. I just had a verbal warning to not get anything from the horror section. Wasn't interested in them anyways.

My opinion, formed from my experiences and those of my friends is that adults under estimate what kids can handle, and over estimate any 'damages'. A kid coming upon a body IRL is probably going to need some counseling. A body on the boob tube isn't the same thing. Especially in a movie, as long as the parent has first verified that the kid knows it's a piece of fiction.

*Statistics, if anything, point out the opposite when it comes to real violence, of the sort that garners criminal charges.

Re:Correct...

[Creepy Crawler]

And do you know what solves the horror movie stuff?

Going hunting for deer.

When you put either buckshot or a razer-tipped arrow down its gut and watch it writhe in pain before its last breath, you know what terror and horror is... And you were the one that caused it. Chainsaws and fingernail freddy dont scare me. To me, they're boring. Instead, when you shoot arrows or bullets, or catch and skin a fish, you know what life is and how to snuff it out.

I did it when I was 12. I killed animals 3x the size of myself. And watching a deer writhe in pain before you take your pistol (you ALWAYS carry a pistol, even if you have a rifle) and shoot it in the head just does something... Either you like it or abhor it. I could do it if that meant eating or not, but I choose not to.

Re:Correct...

[Firethorn]

That'd work fine with the gore and such, but you have to remember it's been a while since I was a kid. It was other aspects of horror films that my parents objected to - they apparently gave me nightmares. Even a PG film rated one edited for TV - don't ask me why(I'm fine now).

Of course - by your standard I should be fine now, I've butchered deer myself. Of course, I stopped having that issue in my late teens, before I went hunting(city kid, though midwestern).

Re:Correct...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're a better shot now

Re:Correct...

[Duradin]

Perhaps if you'd have used slugs instead of buckshot the deer would have had a more humane death.

Aiming for something a bit more vital than the guts would have helped as well.

Re:Correct...

[Firethorn]

You know, I considered putting something like this in there, as I don't take a shot unless I'm sure. I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's been hunting for years, and the occasional non-optimal shot occurred due to sheer chance.

Of course, I've only gone deer hunting once, and got one deer - dead where it stood, basically. The deer I hit with my car this spring(jumped out of the ditch from behind some brush, I couldn't stop), did suffer a bit until I put him down. That made me a little sad. But I approached it from a 'what's done is done' angle and that I had a fatally injured deer in the ditch near my car - so I shot it in the head.

Why is this not yet tagged...

[Anonymous Coward]

suddenoutbreakofcommonsense?

"objective analysis".. riiight

[plasmacutter]

an objective analysis would be putting the game up for download with a survey.

The process for rating games is like that for rating movies.. old curmudgeons get together in a room, and if they see any red pixels it's given an M rating.

They gave PSOGC a teen rating because of "blood". You ran up, killed a monster, and as it died it melted into the floor leaving a very synthetic neon pink "splat" on the ground which looked like nickelodeon's "gak".

Re:"objective analysis".. riiight

[maglor_83]

PSOGC

Phantasy Star Online for the Gamecube for those of us left baffled.

Me?

[Joce640k]

I'm the same person who's telling the publishers what they may or may not publish. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Re:Me?

[Opportunist]

Don't take this personally, but could someone please shoot you? Two flies with a stone and all that. :)

I just don't get it . . .

[GotGame.com]

They mine as well also write a law fining underaged kids who sneak into R movies . . . why they are treating video games any differently from other forms of media is still beyond me o_O

$65k fine?

[DrMrLordX]

Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

Re:$65k fine?

[swordfishBob]

Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

But that's only $64k (a dollar less than it, actually), which is clearly less than $65k.

(ducks)

Re:$65k fine?

[Jedi Alec]

Why did they bother with a $65k fine? I would have been more impressed if they had made it a $65,535 fine or something.

1 word: Excel

Why

[nova.alpha]

Why limit people's access to information? This is, like, one of the humanity's worst mistakes. I feel really sad for kids who are nowadays experience ratings, censorship, and parents who don't know any better. *sigh*

so what thats like..

[Anonymous Coward]

3hrs of the lawyers time?

Money well spent

[Ghostalker474]

I'm sure the residents of Minnesota are thrilled where their tax dollars are going.

Re:Money well spent

[dbmasters]

yes, we are indeed very pleased with out gov't in the last year voting for tax hikes for pet projects, voting themselves a 62% raise in "daily spending allowance" (they now get about $100 a day for lunch and parking expenses) and now they take kids to court and fine them for buying violent games... Yep, we Minnesotans are popping buttons with pride.

Re:Money well spent

[BoberFett]

And now we get a .25% sales tax increase in the cities to buy more buses, or some shit. Nevermind that they just jacked up our taxes not that long ago to build a goddamn stadium that nobody but the wealthy team owners wanted. Good thing we don't have bridges falling down or anything...

Re:Money well spent

[lazyDog86]

What should they be doing? Repairing bridges?

Frank Zappa said it all...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like."

Correction to headline

[Khashishi]

Minnesota Pays Lawyers $65K In Fees