Slashdot Mirror
The State of Video Game Regulation
Gamasutra is running an in-depth look at the regulation of video games in the US and other countries. They discuss the reasons for such legislation, such as child protection and intellectual property restrictions, as well as what gamers can expect to see in the coming years.
"Fairfield also points out combinations of laws, which, when put together make for strange outcomes. The biggest of these, for video games, is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In short, gaining unauthorized access to someone's computer and doing $500 in damages opens you up for criminal charges. It's good for prosecuting hackers, but it makes for a strange fit with social networking websites and user-generated content. That fit was especially strange when prosecutors weren't quite sure how to approach the widely publicized case of Megan Meier. The 13-year-old Meier committed suicide after being deceived and bullied by another girl and her mother, Lori Drew. Unable to find a good way to approach the issue, prosecutors charged Drew under MySpace's End User License Agreement, effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law."
when you accept it as such.
I don't see why they should regulate video games any more than they regulate the content of books.
... Don't buy them for them, and turn on the content rating system, to stop them from borrowing them from friends. Both the XBox and PS3 have these features. Older consoles don't, I admit. But it's a trivial issue. Nonetheless
Most kids are bright enough to tell fiction from reality, and the ones who aren't are likely to get into trouble anyway.
I hesitate to say it, but George Carlin was right - "Wait, the kid who eats too many marbles doesn't get to grow up to have kids of his own? Good. Fuck 'em."
"effectively giving MySpace the power to dictate criminal law." is a load of rubbish, people need to read TFA before making statements like that. Lori was prosecuted for using a fake account to ILLEGALLY HARASS and VICTIMISE A MINOR!
The prosecution used the available and existing laws to ensure some sort of punishment for this crime as it generally fell into a non-existing law area. No laws were changed, no laws were trampled on. Unless people sign terms of agreement anywhere, AND intend to mis-represent themselves AND harass and victimise minors to the point of physical/mental harm or death, they have NOTHING to fear.
Period!
But if they do have that intention, they deserve everything they get.
Well.. according to the article, there were 2 laws made, and both have been shutdown.. Then it also talks about a Ca state law that is being fought..From what I gather, the industry is regulating themselves anyway.. I don't see what the hub-bub is all about.. The Constitution seems to be working just fine in this area.
As to "protecting" children... That is the parents job.. period. If I was a parent today, it would be up to me to decide when I felt they could handle the internet.. or to decide if I felt they had enough of a grasp on the difference between fantasy and reality to handle some of these games... Personally, I feel that any parent that has kids that are under the age of 16 or so surfing the internet by themselves are pretty shitty parents.
There is no kid safe internet.. and if people want that, they will have to build a separate read only internet with "approved" content.. until then, just keep em off it.. problem solved.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
> Remember people, we live in democracies (well, alot of us do!), you don't just have to bend over and take it unless THE MAJORITY AGREES
Fixed that for you.
The biggest issue, it seems to me, is that people who spend a lot of time playing video games generally lack social skills. While everyone else was learning how to relate to the world, video game players were learning how to relate to video games.
Those who play games don't realize that they are socially backward because they are socially backward.
What you've just written is a monument to the mollycoddling that Western (but particularly middle class American) children get put through. It's utterly ridiculous. Little boys have run around with sticks, knocked each other over, fallen out of trees, and got busted nicking candy from the store since time immemorial, these things are an important part of establishing identity and social boundaries.
If a kid breaks another kids arm when playing with a baseball bat, he's learnt a damn hard lesson and won't do it again. If it's his arm that gets broken he'll learn to stay away from similar situations.
Adults often try to rationalise this behaviour as "he was playing halo, and he just hit his friend with a bat. It's the game's fault", when it ain't. He was being a kid.
I never hesitate to say that George Carlin was right. He was always right.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yeah, IRL, me either. Just don't want to get modded down for being seen to slap down someone's kids...
Firstly I (and many others) feel that the verdict in the Drew case was a travesty, set a horrible precedent and was the one of the absolute worst uses of the judicial system in recent years - the implications are huge and could affect all of us who spend a lot of time online. It was an abuse of the legal system in my mind, tapping into people's emotions about a tragedy to get a dubious legal ruling passed - it was a judicial lynch mob.
Secondly I am so tired of the double standard in video games in how any type of the most gruesome violence is permitted (with the rating system) but even a minor mention of sex or nudity and the game can;t be made. Sex has to be sanitized, yet you can blow someones brains out.
I love violent games as much as the next person, the generally are some of the best games out there - well made shooters are especially up my alley - loved GTA, but damn, it would be nice not to have to tiptoe around any sex or nudity (if it's appropriate). In games made for adults this should be an option. I am not talking about having those things just for the sake of having them, but am referring to the ability for a designer to make a game truly geared towards adults that isn't a lame excuse/attempt at porn. I would like to see the ability for AO titles to be viable, what that would be I don't know, but take the sex scene is GTA4 - they could have made those a lot more fun or funny had they had a little visual latitude.
As a parent I totally understand how and why people are concerned about violent games. I play a lot of games I wouldn't want my daughter to play until she is old enough to understand certain things. The biggest issue I would have with these sort of games is the same issue I have with TV and some movies when it comes to kids, and it the desensitization to violence and the pain and suffering of others. I think that can do a real disservice to the humanity inside a person if they grow up constantly witnessing violent acts.
However, with all of that said I think that it is a parent's job to monitor what their kids see and buy and put it in the proper context.
I do think that the voluntary ratings system is the way to go....The absolute worst thing that could be done is censorship of game content by the government - it would especially be pointless because it's not like it would have an effect on TV (which is much worse). Censorship doesn't solve anything - it's bad enough that the industry self censors based on what they think will sell or be controversial.
Parents who aren't digitally literate could use a little education about these ratings and what they mean, but all in all determining what is appropriate for a child or the market isn't a government job, it's a parent/industry job, and for the record if given the choice between my child seeing explicit violence or explicit sex it's my feeling that sex is much less harmful.