I'd like to rent/buy movies to watch on my PC. I really would. But until they figure out a way to allow me to do so via Firefox, I'm gonna have to take a pass.
I don't see a problem, per se, with limiting sales and rentals of M rated games to children under 17, as the "M" rating is equivalent to an "R" for a motion picture. But, I think that a year in jail for renting a kid a copy of the new Prince of Persia game is a bit harsh.
That said, there is no way that this law, even if it passes, will get past the courts, since it's so poorly written. Here's why:
In Criminal Law there are what is known as "Strict Liability Statutes". These statutes are written to basically regulate the flow of traffic, commerce, and modern issues that were introduced after most of the common law was already laid down. See, most actual crimes require an act, and a criminal state of mind. The Strict Liability Statutes are the exception - they require only an act. This law is a Strict Liability Statute.
The courts have said on numerous occassions, that if a piece of legislation is going to get rid of the mens rea (criminal mind) component of a crime, that piece of legislation needs to have a very minor punishment (usually a small to moderate fine) that will attach no "stigma" to the one violating it. Well, a year in jail is a pretty major "stigma" to have to bear. Dumbass legislators have, on many occassions, tried to pass these Strict Liability Statutes with long jail sentences, and almost always, they've been overturned.
This bill is doomed before it's even signed.
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN Rush was fired due to the fact that ESPN's viewers simply didn't like him - that and the fact that he was a cruddy commentator. He was hardly "censored". One only has to tune in to one of the five bazillion stations he's broadcast on for hours a day to see this.
Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media Uhh... the guy said that our country would be better off under uber-kook Strom Thurmond's love of segregation. He was rightly pilloried for saying something incredibly stupid. The First Amendment also includes the right to protest when somebody says something hateful. Lott (inadvertendly, perhaps) condoned segregation, and paid the price for it. That's not censorship - that's free speech in action.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups - see Trent Lott. Free speech also means people can protest your words.
Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus EVERY college campus? Even this one?
Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller. I never heard of this, so I'll keep quiet...
Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller Ignoring the fact that Coulter writes complete fiction on a third grade level, I do recall seeing her on Larry King and Fox News numerous times. This allegation is simply not true. Besides - the book was a best-seller. How can that be censorship?
Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller The guy has a book, a radio show, and a TV show. I don't think he's in any danger of being censored...
Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind Yeah. Nevermind that FOX News tried to have his book banned. Of course, the case was laughed out of court.
My favorite quote...
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 3, Funny
...from the article:
"Jeff Chasen, general manager of desktop players for RealNetworks, said the company has made "great strides" in redesigning the download page to make it easy for people to find what they want right away.
"We're working on improving that page and working to get people what they want as much as possible," he said. "It's tricky. We have to offer both somehow."
Here's how you do both, Jeff. Clearly label the free player. Clearly label the one that costs money. Let the user choose which one he wants.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal" and "This is a 12 year old girl, for crying out loud" are two different statements. She's not saying her daughter should be allowed to do anything since she's 12. She's saying:
A) She honestly does not know what her child did was illegal. Why should she? She paid $29 for what she thought was the ability to trade files online. Despite RIAA propaganda - their PR spots were not as ominpresent as they claim. They were mostly found online and on MTV. Many, many adults don't watch TV or surf sites like slashdot or Wired News. It's entirely conceivable that this woman thought that paying $29 was all she needed to do to download music.'
B) The RIAA is suing a 12 year old girl. That statement is powerful enough to stand on its own.
ico was a nice little gem of a game. Sure, there was running and jumping, but with a twist - not only did you have to find your way out of the castle, but you have to lead a princess out by the hand, as well. The game also had one of the weirdest storylines ever. Perhaps not the most original game, but definitely one of a kind. When was the last time you played a game starring a viking-helmet clad child who beat back shadow-beasts with a large stick?
Mr. Mosquito was another game that defied conventions. You play the game as a mosquito, who must feed on the blood of a Japanese family without being detected.
Between the two, "Ico" was (in my opinion at least) the more fun, but both games at least added a new twist to old formats. Of course, neither game was a financial success, which is the crux of the matter. There's very little innovation because game publishers know that formula games (FPS, Sims, and Sports Titles) will always have a built-in market. Niche games like the ones above have to explain what they're about (and possibly confuse people), which may turn off some of the more mainstream game purchasers.
Does our privacy deserve to be gone at the whim of corporate America? Do we really want to allow companies to demand information about consumers without a subpoena ? Are corporations now as powerful as the government?
This isn't a question about illegal acts. It's about the limiting power of non-government entities to spy on us.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to rent/buy movies to watch on my PC. I really would. But until they figure out a way to allow me to do so via Firefox, I'm gonna have to take a pass.
I don't see a problem, per se, with limiting sales and rentals of M rated games to children under 17, as the "M" rating is equivalent to an "R" for a motion picture. But, I think that a year in jail for renting a kid a copy of the new Prince of Persia game is a bit harsh. That said, there is no way that this law, even if it passes, will get past the courts, since it's so poorly written. Here's why: In Criminal Law there are what is known as "Strict Liability Statutes". These statutes are written to basically regulate the flow of traffic, commerce, and modern issues that were introduced after most of the common law was already laid down. See, most actual crimes require an act, and a criminal state of mind. The Strict Liability Statutes are the exception - they require only an act. This law is a Strict Liability Statute. The courts have said on numerous occassions, that if a piece of legislation is going to get rid of the mens rea (criminal mind) component of a crime, that piece of legislation needs to have a very minor punishment (usually a small to moderate fine) that will attach no "stigma" to the one violating it. Well, a year in jail is a pretty major "stigma" to have to bear. Dumbass legislators have, on many occassions, tried to pass these Strict Liability Statutes with long jail sentences, and almost always, they've been overturned. This bill is doomed before it's even signed.
1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN
Rush was fired due to the fact that ESPN's viewers simply didn't like him - that and the fact that he was a cruddy commentator. He was hardly "censored". One only has to tune in to one of the five bazillion stations he's broadcast on for hours a day to see this.
Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media
Uhh... the guy said that our country would be better off under uber-kook Strom Thurmond's love of segregation. He was rightly pilloried for saying something incredibly stupid. The First Amendment also includes the right to protest when somebody says something hateful. Lott (inadvertendly, perhaps) condoned segregation, and paid the price for it. That's not censorship - that's free speech in action.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups - see Trent Lott. Free speech also means people can protest your words.
Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus
EVERY college campus? Even this one?
Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
I never heard of this, so I'll keep quiet...
Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
Ignoring the fact that Coulter writes complete fiction on a third grade level, I do recall seeing her on Larry King and Fox News numerous times. This allegation is simply not true. Besides - the book was a best-seller. How can that be censorship?
Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller
The guy has a book, a radio show, and a TV show. I don't think he's in any danger of being censored...
Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind
Yeah. Nevermind that FOX News tried to have his book banned. Of course, the case was laughed out of court.
...from the article:
"Jeff Chasen, general manager of desktop players for RealNetworks, said the company has made "great strides" in redesigning the download page to make it easy for people to find what they want right away.
"We're working on improving that page and working to get people what they want as much as possible," he said. "It's tricky. We have to offer both somehow."
Here's how you do both, Jeff. Clearly label the free player. Clearly label the one that costs money. Let the user choose which one he wants.
So, they're gonna turn Anakin into Gollum? Sweet! "Kenobi is tricksy and false, my precious..."
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal" and "This is a 12 year old girl, for crying out loud" are two different statements. She's not saying her daughter should be allowed to do anything since she's 12. She's saying: A) She honestly does not know what her child did was illegal. Why should she? She paid $29 for what she thought was the ability to trade files online. Despite RIAA propaganda - their PR spots were not as ominpresent as they claim. They were mostly found online and on MTV. Many, many adults don't watch TV or surf sites like slashdot or Wired News. It's entirely conceivable that this woman thought that paying $29 was all she needed to do to download music.' B) The RIAA is suing a 12 year old girl. That statement is powerful enough to stand on its own.
From what I understand, one of the supeonas was handed out to a person who had downloaded four (4) songs. That's hardly a mass collection...
ico was a nice little gem of a game. Sure, there was running and jumping, but with a twist - not only did you have to find your way out of the castle, but you have to lead a princess out by the hand, as well. The game also had one of the weirdest storylines ever. Perhaps not the most original game, but definitely one of a kind. When was the last time you played a game starring a viking-helmet clad child who beat back shadow-beasts with a large stick?
Mr. Mosquito was another game that defied conventions. You play the game as a mosquito, who must feed on the blood of a Japanese family without being detected.
Between the two, "Ico" was (in my opinion at least) the more fun, but both games at least added a new twist to old formats. Of course, neither game was a financial success, which is the crux of the matter. There's very little innovation because game publishers know that formula games (FPS, Sims, and Sports Titles) will always have a built-in market. Niche games like the ones above have to explain what they're about (and possibly confuse people), which may turn off some of the more mainstream game purchasers.Does our privacy deserve to be gone at the whim of corporate America? Do we really want to allow companies to demand information about consumers without a subpoena ? Are corporations now as powerful as the government? This isn't a question about illegal acts. It's about the limiting power of non-government entities to spy on us.