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."
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.
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.
Interesting statement. Have you considered, though, that some people are drawn to video games because they are socially awkward and not the other way around?