Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees

Posted by kdawson on from the don't-let-the-door-hit-you dept.

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."

45 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. So what's the point of having ratings? by NMBLNG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, why do movies have ratings?

    2. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by maglor_83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ooh ooh...my turn...

      Why does food have listed ingredients?

    4. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by FriendComputer · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      ----- Rooting out Commie Mutant Traitors since 1984
    6. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    7. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    8. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by LoganDzwon · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    9. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by shadylookin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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.

    11. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Thugthrasher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because allergins can lead to severe medical problems?

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    18. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by jmac1492 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    19. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by KGIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by xalorous · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
    22. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Jurily · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sex is well defined

      Bill Clinton said otherwise.

    23. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then sell them alcohol.

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

    24. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Lunarsight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by Von+Helmet · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    26. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by loafula · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    27. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by chemisus · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    28. Re:So what's the point of having ratings? by CauseWithoutARebel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Weird slashbug #455
  2. Oh Boy now I'm a babysitter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. Re:In related news.... by LoganDzwon · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Your tax money at work! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Interesting to see other plaintiffs here: by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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*

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  6. What's needed is a law to lock up the parents by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents by spydabyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What's needed is a law to lock up the parents by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Does this mean minors can now buy porno, too? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  8. Film Ratings in the USA are not enforced by law by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  9. Correct... by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Correct... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
  10. "objective analysis".. riiight by plasmacutter · · Score: 3

    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".

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:"objective analysis".. riiight by maglor_83 · · Score: 4, Informative

      PSOGC

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

  11. $65k fine? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  12. Money well spent by Ghostalker474 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Money well spent by dbmasters · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      dB Masters