The producer is responsible for certifying their product according to the Laws of the Land. It's true for movies, for food, for drugs: Those are costs of doing business (that are, of course, passed right along to the customer). You might be able to put together an argument if the game companies were on the financial ropes. This is obviously not the case.
"when it is clearly meant to be benefiting the majority, and taking away sales from the publisher."
So, what? Ten year olds should be able to pop into the store and buy MurderDeath 5? I don't agree that the publishers have a Right to that audience. For another thing, complying with the ratings requirements will to some degree indemnify them from lawsuits by parents whose kids have just gone and shot up a schoolyard.
The cost of the ratings system is trivial, and the benefit is a benefit for all parties. What's the problem?
Requiring video games to be rated is reasonable. Requiring retailers to card purchasers is reasonable. Making it a felony to sell games to minors is horrendous overkill.
If you want to define "censorship" as any restriction on the transfer of information, sure. I choose to define it more narrowly. Prior restraint by a governing body is censorship. A company deciding that it might be unpopular to sell a product is not censorship.
"And it isn't the families who are supposedly benefiting from this who foot the bill either."
I totally agree with your first paragraph. It is the parent's final responsibility to generate a well-adjusted child who won't go postal the first time they see somebody get shot on TV. In order to do that, the parents need some control over what their kids are allowed to buy.
You might not think that video games are harmful, and that's your prerogative as a parent. However, there's a substantial body of research that contradicts your supposition.
I don't happen to agree that playing GTA will turn a child instantly into a hooligan. However, I would not allow an eight year old to play that game, any more than I'd let them smoke a cigarette or watch a hardcore porn movie.
Requiring parental permission is not "censorship".
What? A retailer should have to buy a crypto system in order to verify that the kid is allowed to buy stuff? Christ, how hard is it to say "Mom, would you buy this for me on Amazon?"
I don't need to make any distinction at all. I think it's completely reasonable to require a parent to make the purchase, since there's no practical way to verify the existence of "permission".
"most parents think games are 'only games' and buying little jimmy the latest goreland 7 video game is perfectly acceptable, totally disregarding the age ratings."
Since they're the parents, they get to make that determination. It's their responsibility to do so.
How does a parent give a child permission to go to an R-rated movie? They buy them tickets. How does a parent give a child permission to buy an M-rated game? They buy it for them.
What would you propose? Writing a note? Come on. How on earth would a retailer vet that signature?
"In fact, when getting my MP3 player, I made sure that it wasn't an IPod"
Popularity and quality are on orthogona axes. Just because something is popular (or trendy or chic or vogue or pick your word) doesn't mean that it isn't really well engineered.
I didn't buy an iPod because it's "cool". I've never been cool in my life. I bought it because it is the best engineered music player available.
There are others that are cheaper, or smaller, or higher capacity, or have more features, but to my mind the iPod does all of those things very, very well and has no shortcomings.
It's like the Tour de France. You can win the race without ever coming in first place (although I'm not sure that's ever actually happened). You don't have to be the fastest on any given day, but you do have to be consistently very, very fast.
Other people might have different criteria, and I respect that. But it's just stupid to say "I won't buy an iPod because it's popular".
The opposite of "Buy an iPod" is "not buy an iPod". Do you get that?
The original poster said that he didn't want to buy an iPod because it's what everybody is buying. I am simply pointing out the foolishness of letting "everybody" dictate your options, either in a positive or negative sense.
Just because you don't know anybody who has an iPod doesn't mean it isn't the most popular MP3 player on the planet. Of course, that has absolutey NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, but hey...whatever makes you happy.
I can recall your words. Look: It's easy. I just clicked the "Parent" link a few times.
" yes, bartering is american pie.. BUT , its also illegal. THe government wants its share of EVERY transaction. Its been banned for a long long time!!"
You allege that bartering is illegal and banned. That is not true.
So, whatever. Organize thoughts before posting them in public forum. Make much happy.
"At the end of the day, every time one of you sticks FireFox on some clueless' machine, and tell them they're "safe", you're lying (or just ignorant)."
Duh. Anytime anybody tells you you're "safe", they're lying or ignorant. There is no such condition as "safe". Breathing contains an element of risk. Opening your eyes is risky. Scratching your ass is risky.
So "safe" doesn't exist. Firefox is certainly safER than IE.
Slashdot Mirror
" Keynote and Powerpoint make people dumber. I'm too lazy to look up the coresponding Slashdot article."
So you're suffering from an advanced case, huh?
What does that have to do with anything?
That is one big-ass niche, Sparky.
Seems to me like changing that law would be a good idea. Get to it. You live in a democracy, right?
Not to my knowledge, no. It'd take a specific act of Congress.
Wal Mart chooses not to sell some titles (which is of course their prerogative), but there's no facility for a nationwide "ban".
The producer is responsible for certifying their product according to the Laws of the Land. It's true for movies, for food, for drugs: Those are costs of doing business (that are, of course, passed right along to the customer). You might be able to put together an argument if the game companies were on the financial ropes. This is obviously not the case.
"when it is clearly meant to be benefiting the majority, and taking away sales from the publisher."
So, what? Ten year olds should be able to pop into the store and buy MurderDeath 5? I don't agree that the publishers have a Right to that audience. For another thing, complying with the ratings requirements will to some degree indemnify them from lawsuits by parents whose kids have just gone and shot up a schoolyard.
The cost of the ratings system is trivial, and the benefit is a benefit for all parties. What's the problem?
It's not a government agency, it's a trade group. And they charge the publisher, just like the movie rating body.
The cost is trivial. Do you really, really think your game prices would go down if the ESRB went away?
Requiring video games to be rated is reasonable. Requiring retailers to card purchasers is reasonable. Making it a felony to sell games to minors is horrendous overkill.
If you want to define "censorship" as any restriction on the transfer of information, sure. I choose to define it more narrowly. Prior restraint by a governing body is censorship. A company deciding that it might be unpopular to sell a product is not censorship.
"And it isn't the families who are supposedly benefiting from this who foot the bill either."
The bill for what?
I totally agree with your first paragraph. It is the parent's final responsibility to generate a well-adjusted child who won't go postal the first time they see somebody get shot on TV. In order to do that, the parents need some control over what their kids are allowed to buy.
You might not think that video games are harmful, and that's your prerogative as a parent. However, there's a substantial body of research that contradicts your supposition.
I don't happen to agree that playing GTA will turn a child instantly into a hooligan. However, I would not allow an eight year old to play that game, any more than I'd let them smoke a cigarette or watch a hardcore porn movie.
Requiring parental permission is not "censorship".
Er, so, what exactly is your argument?
Or maybe I should have pretty high expectations for an entertainment product I'm going to spend $50 on?
What? A retailer should have to buy a crypto system in order to verify that the kid is allowed to buy stuff? Christ, how hard is it to say "Mom, would you buy this for me on Amazon?"
I don't need to make any distinction at all. I think it's completely reasonable to require a parent to make the purchase, since there's no practical way to verify the existence of "permission".
How do you know?
"it is the only viable copy protection scheme out there"
If by "viable" you mean "keeps me from playing the game when I want to, even though I paid Valve directly for it", yeah, it's really viable.
It's also a huge pain in my ass.
"That's a fair game I'm willing to play,"
I'd be willing to play too, if I could ever not lose.
"most parents think games are 'only games' and buying little jimmy the latest goreland 7 video game is perfectly acceptable, totally disregarding the age ratings."
Since they're the parents, they get to make that determination. It's their responsibility to do so.
"Did I say that there was a problem with that?"
Seems to me like you did, yes.
How does a parent give a child permission to go to an R-rated movie? They buy them tickets. How does a parent give a child permission to buy an M-rated game? They buy it for them.
What would you propose? Writing a note? Come on. How on earth would a retailer vet that signature?
Doesn't seem to me like any of those activities make one an interesting person.
But heck...what do I know? I still read, like, books and stuff. How last millenium.
"In fact, when getting my MP3 player, I made sure that it wasn't an IPod"
Popularity and quality are on orthogona axes. Just because something is popular (or trendy or chic or vogue or pick your word) doesn't mean that it isn't really well engineered.
I didn't buy an iPod because it's "cool". I've never been cool in my life. I bought it because it is the best engineered music player available.
There are others that are cheaper, or smaller, or higher capacity, or have more features, but to my mind the iPod does all of those things very, very well and has no shortcomings.
It's like the Tour de France. You can win the race without ever coming in first place (although I'm not sure that's ever actually happened). You don't have to be the fastest on any given day, but you do have to be consistently very, very fast.
Other people might have different criteria, and I respect that. But it's just stupid to say "I won't buy an iPod because it's popular".
You are totally failing to understand.
The opposite of "Buy an iPod" is "not buy an iPod". Do you get that?
The original poster said that he didn't want to buy an iPod because it's what everybody is buying. I am simply pointing out the foolishness of letting "everybody" dictate your options, either in a positive or negative sense.
Just because you don't know anybody who has an iPod doesn't mean it isn't the most popular MP3 player on the planet. Of course, that has absolutey NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, but hey...whatever makes you happy.
"In fact, when getting my MP3 player, I made sure that it wasn't an IPod"
Sounds like he's doing the "exact opposite" of what "everybody" is doing.
Do you cross the street?
If you're not worried about crossing the street, why the hell are you worried about getting hit in the head with an airplane?
I can recall your words. Look: It's easy. I just clicked the "Parent" link a few times.
.. BUT , its also illegal. THe government wants its share of EVERY transaction. Its been banned for a long long time!!"
" yes, bartering is american pie
You allege that bartering is illegal and banned. That is not true.
So, whatever. Organize thoughts before posting them in public forum. Make much happy.
Go to the other end of the runway. Problem solved.
If you're standing on the axis of the runway the airplane is landing on, it's not that big of a problem.
"At the end of the day, every time one of you sticks FireFox on some clueless' machine, and tell them they're "safe", you're lying (or just ignorant)."
Duh. Anytime anybody tells you you're "safe", they're lying or ignorant. There is no such condition as "safe". Breathing contains an element of risk. Opening your eyes is risky. Scratching your ass is risky.
So "safe" doesn't exist. Firefox is certainly safER than IE.