Slashdot Mirror
FTC: "Video Game Self Regulation Works"
Itesh writes "Following an established trend, a Federal Trade Commission undercover shopper survey found that video game retailers continue to enforce most vigorously the ratings governing age and content that were established by the entertainment media industry. Music CD retailers lag far behind movie theaters, as well as movie DVD and video game retailers, in preventing unaccompanied children under age 17 from purchasing entertainment intended for mature audiences."
And yet all the politicians who think we need to enact all these stricter laws when it comes to video game sales will ignore this and try to claim that any 5 year old can walk into a game store and buy GTA IV on their own.
Even the most unscrupulous of organizations will self-regulate if it's directly essential to retaining their customers. Besides, with games, unlike other media, it's natural to hold off on access to things until certain conditions have been met: "YOU MUST BE AT LEAST LEVEL 17 TO PURCHASE THIS GAME."
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
If someone is old enough to walk into a store and purchase a product, then that person is probably old enough to not be significantly harmed by hearing, seeing, or playing the content. The ratings should exist as a guide to parents, who shouldn't purchase these products for young children. By the time they're teenagers and have their own money and transportation, there are more pressing things to worry about than if they're seeing boobs in a movie, hearing explicit lyrics in a song, or turning enemies into a mass of blood and gore in a video game. Let's worry about keeping them in school, off of drugs, and not pregnant.
Parents can learn more about how entertainment media for children are rated here. This site describes the different ratings systems, and provides links to the organizations that sponsor them.
I guess you did read it too fast.
We're not supposed to have a problem with censorship when it's by private industry, because it's only censorship when the government does it. But if the industry is self-censoring because the only alternative is the threat of the government stepping in and doing it (which would presumably be unconstitutional) and that results in a whole range of content not having distribution and titles that do have distribution being modified so that they have less teeth (think of the most mature game versus the most mature movie you can get at the theater or on DVD) . . . and I have to ask "what's the difference?". One is a result directly mandated by the government and the other result is derived through extortion by the government. Worse, the extortion/threat method allows them to accomplish the same thing through a ratings middle-man in a private industry that keeps them from getting their hands dirty at a legal level.
I have no problem with self-regulation, however, it needs to be simplified. There is one rating system for movies, one for TV, and one for games. Let's make one common scale, and something easy, and then have all the boards work together - I mean, TV shows are like movies. Games are like movies. TV shows are sometimes about movies, and games are sometimes about both. It only makes sense.
How about a rating system like what Xbox Arcade uses?
Sex: 0/5
Violence: 3/5
Language: 1/5
Drug References: 0/5
Then, add up the numbers and apply to a chart to determine overall age appropriateness, and say, "Not appropriate for children under X." Do that for all three types of media (hell, even books). Only makes sense.
Natural human responsibility? You're not a student of history, are you? Everyone's always been blaming everything on someone else. Even the bible toting population can escape it with the myth of the first man Adam blaming eating an apple on the first woman Eve who blamed it on a snake. So... If that's your baseline "natural", then there ya go, nobody takes responsibility "naturally".
Of course, if we're talking evolution, taking responsibility only makes sense if it propagated our species. Doesn't make much sense in a death penalty court case. Doesn't make much sense in telling your lover you screwed around on her/him (since you are now very unlikely to procreate with said lover).
So... what's this "natural" thing you are talking about? Or is that some 1950's sounding buzzword to return us all to the "good ole days"?
If everybody took responsibility for themselves, their children, and their own actions and words, then what's in that for government? The goal is to transfer that natural human responsibility to the business of government, justifying yet even more power and revenue for the elite few. The goal is to have the populace run to government at the first hint of a problem -- NOT to think for themselves and come to a reasonable solution, skipping the middleman entirely.
You're not in the buisiness of government, are you?
I8-D
I worked at Suncoast several years ago and we were explicitly told not to enforce age restrictions on movies (discretion allowed on the "adult" movies, but still no carding). Anyone with the cash was allowed to buy R or Unrated movies. Meanwhile, the Gamestop next door was turning away kids trying to buy Grand Theft Auto. Often parents would come in, ask why their kid couldn't buy it, then buy it for them anyway.
End of line..