schwarzenegger
Latest
The Predator is coming to Ubisoft's 'Ghost Recon Wildlands'
It's been 30 years since Arnold Schwarzenegger's Dutch headed into the jungles of Central America, only to find himself hunted by a stealth alien warrior nicknamed the Predator. Now players of Ghost Recon Wildlands, Ubisoft's open-world tactical shooter, will fall under the watchful eye of the Predator in an all new special event running from December 14th through early January.
Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest
Between the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions published in today's Supreme Court decision on Brown v. EMA, there's a good 92 pages of legalese for enthusiastic gaming activists to pore over. If you don't feel like flipping through a novella of legal documents in search of relevant, easily digestible bits, feel free to check out some highlights from each opinion, which we've compiled after the jump!
Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us
In 2005, California state legislature passed Assembly Bill 1179, a law penned by Democratic state senator Leland Yee which prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. The law mandated the application of special stickers to titles deemed too violent, and slapped retail employees who sold those games to anyone under the age of 18 with a maximum $1,000 fine. The law was signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but was struck down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before it could be enforced. Following an unsuccessful appeal of that decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the law's progenitors petitioned for a hearing in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was successful, the case was argued last November and, earlier today, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to uphold the decision of the lower courts: California Assembly Bill 1179 violates the First Amendment rights afforded to all forms of media in the United States. This decision obviously doesn't just affect Californian teenagers with a penchant for video games above their maturity level. It represents a vote of confidence in games and the non-governmental agency (see: The ESRB) which regulates their sale.
PAX East 2011: Law In Games panel hits home for WoW
PAX East is home to all sorts of panels and discussion, ranging from sexism in video games to mechanics and motivations in the games we play. Legal issues are present in all things, and video games -- even World of Warcraft -- are no exception. Two of the biggest topics at the panel, hosted by prominent legal minds in the video game industry, were End User License Agreements and damages in game as part of tort law. All in all, it was a very interesting panel of Q&A from some of gaming's smartest minds.
ECA rally before the Supreme Court violent game hearing captured on video
Though you've probably heard plenty of empirical evidence on Xbox Live to the contrary, gamers are capable of being angry about something without totally losing their minds. Check out the video below of the ECA rally held before Schwarzenegger v. EMA to see how cooler heads prevailed in D.C.
The Lawbringer: Self-regulation and the video game industry
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Hello, friends. I hope you all enjoyed the discussion last week about Schwarzenegger v. EMA that took place in the article and in the comments. People get very passionate about the role of government, and I thought the conversation was a very positive one, so thank you. This week, I've got a little more self-regulation talk for you, so please come in, sit, and get ready for another fun look at the video games industry.
The Lawbringer: Schwarzenegger v. EMA
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Supreme Court cases are super-exciting, especially when they involve things that I cherish. This week, The Lawbringer looks at Schwarzenegger v. EMA, the new flagship video game case that people will be talking about for months until we get a final ruling from the Supreme Court. Don't know what's going on? Want a basic understanding of why people are yelling and screaming about violent video games and California? Let's journey together all the way back to 2005 and see for ourselves.
The Lawbringer: Arguing about video games
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Running parallel to the games we love and enjoy is a world full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? One day, massively multiplayers will be center stage at the Supreme Court of the United States of America. We aren't there yet, but one day. Hell, we just got video games as a genre of entertainment on the lips of the Supreme Court justices. I'll talk about the Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA later on, once we've got more to go on than the opening arguments, etc., and give you a rundown in the simplest terms possible about what is being argued over. For now, I'd like to talk about the language of video games being used in the case and get a little ranty about who gets to argue about video games.
ESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument
Following today's oral arguments session in the U.S. Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA, representatives from the Entertainment Software Association (they're on the EMA side) held a conference call to discuss how they thought things went. ESA president Michael Gallagher was optimistic, saying, "Today was a historic day, not only for the computer and video game industry, but for the First Amendment." He added, "I think that in court today, you heard every single argument the industry has made, articulated not just by Paul [Smith] ... but by the justices themselves." "ESA is very, very proud of the work that was done by Paul," Gallagher said. "The argument today was very lively, the justices were very informed and the dialogue clearly established that video games are entitled to the same treatment as movies, music, books and other forms of entertainment." Jenner and Block counsel of record Paul Smith, who presented the EMA's arguments during today's hearings, was similarly optimistic. He offered his opinion that the representative from California's arguments didn't satisfy the "strict scrutiny" requirements needed to revoke video games' First Amendment protections. He added, "Though there's obviously a great deal of complexity in the whole thing -- and it's very difficult to come away knowing with any sense of confidence where the court's going to come down specifically -- we do feel pretty good about having all of our arguments aired, and getting a lot of traction." ESA general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow echoed Smith's confidence, saying, "It was gratifying to hear all of the themes we had presented in our papers echoed by one or more justices at various times throughout the day. We feel very confident that our case was heard as thoroughly and carefully as it can be." "There's really no way to know for sure how this is going to come out," Doroshow said, "but we at least feel good that the best case possible was put forward for the industry and our position."
Our favorite SCOTUS quotes with commentary from the NBA Jam guy
We're still poring over the transcripts from today's Schwarzenegger vs. EMA case, and as we discussed it, we decided our enthusiasm for the judges' utter contempt for the Schwazenegger side's argument could only be summed up with quotes from NBA Jam announcer Tim Kitzrow. Enjoy.
Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now
You've read about the stakes, you've read about the procedure -- now it's time to read about exactly what went down in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today, when representatives from the Entertainment Software Association and the state of California butted heads over the contentious Schwarzenegger v. EMA case. The Supreme Court's official website recently posted a complete transcript of the oral arguments from both parties -- you can pore over an embedded version of it below. The 72-page document is quite a read -- we'll update this post periodically with highlights from the proceedings. Click past the jump for more!
ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court
When the clock strikes 10 a.m. tomorrow morning in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. By now, you know how the results of this landmark case will affect the video game industry and its consumers -- but who's actually going to bat for the industry in tomorrow's hearings? More importantly, how does that litigatory sausage get made? Entertainment Software Association general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow is one such batter (or sausage-maker, depending on which of the previous metaphors you followed). A media law heavyweight in his own right, Doroshow has served as an executive for the Recording Industry Association of America and as senior counsel the U.S. Department of Justice before joining the ESA in September 2008. Tomorrow, he'll be one of the legal representatives for the Entertainment Merchants Association, responsible for helping it make its side of the argument to the Supreme Court. Doroshow broke down the specifics of that argument for us earlier today. To learn about the case the ESA is presenting in court tomorrow -- as well as the possible repercussions of the Supreme Court's decision -- check out our Q&A with Doroshow after the jump.
How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers
Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will convene to hear oral arguments for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association -- a case most gamers are likely familiar with. The court will decide whether or not to overturn the decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- both of which found California law AB 1179, which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. According to Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, there's a lot more at stake in this case than whether or not mature titles will be legally withheld from Californian teenagers. Much, much more, in fact -- should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of the two lower courts, certain First Amendment protections currently afforded to video games (and, by association, other forms of entertainment media) could be abolished, completely changing the landscape of the industry. Mercurio sums it up nicely: "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced."
ECA to stage Washington rally prior to Supreme Court battle
Oral arguments for the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court case are set to begin on November 2. In the run up to the historic court battle, which could result in the restriction of sales of violent video games, the Entertainment Consumers Association is planning to organize a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court itself. The event is set to take place on November 2 at 9:00 am at the US Supreme Court Building, with the ECA calling on gamers to join the rally "in support of free speech." If you're planning on going, why not organize a carpool in the comments? After that, read through our litany of coverage on the issue, from its humble beginnings as a failed California state law to its upcoming moment in the spotlight before the Supreme Court. After all, we're sure it's a long ride to D.C. Might as well bone up on current events, right?
Steve and the Governator mark transplant bill signing
In a ceremony commemorating California's SB 1395, the world's most well-known liver transplant recipient and the world's only former killer future robot turned politician posed for photos. Jobs and Schwarzenegger were at the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in Stanford, CA to mark the signing of the transplant bill into law. Both men have been active sponsors of the measure, which establishes a live donor registry for kidney transplants and sets up a binary opt-in/opt-out system for organ donation via the DMV. While Californians were able to register as organ donors before when getting or renewing a driver's license, the new system requires that they explicitly choose to be a donor or not to be a donor. Jobs received a liver transplant in 2009; he chose to register as a transplant candidate in Memphis, TN rather than in California in order to improve his odds of getting a donor organ in time to salvage his health. In his remarks at the March announcement of the bill, Steve noted that 400 Californians died waiting for donor organs in 2009.
Common Sense Media: 72 percent of parents support proposed Calif. violent game law
The non-profit, family-centric organization known as Common Sense Media recently published the results of a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International, which asked 2,100 parents about their stance on the contested California law that would ban the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. According to a press release from the group, 72 percent of respondents support the ban, while 75 percent would "rate the video game industry negatively when it comes to how they protect kids from violent video games." Said Common Sense Media founder James Steyer: "What we've learned from this poll is that parents want to be the ones who decide which games their kids play, not the video game industry." Of course, the Supreme Court isn't ruling on who decides which games kids play. The court's ruling on whether First Amendment protections can be waived for games deemed by ... someone to be too violent, formalizing a policy already adopted by major retailers into a California state law. Parents, as far as we know, still have the final say over what media their kids are allowed to consume -- not the video game industry, the ESRB, Governor Schwarzenegger or even the Supreme Court. Then again, when you support your position with videos like the one posted after the jump (the link to which was included in Common Sense's press release), we can understand why parents might lose the equanimity required to make that distinction.
Entertainment Software Association files brief in Supreme Court case
The Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association have voiced their side of the upcoming Supreme Court review of the 2005 California law which prohibits the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. The two organizations have filed a joint brief in the Supreme Court, which explicitly states (several times) that "the California statute is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstitutional." The brief adds, "it would threaten freedom of expression not just for video games, but for all art forms. It would also tie up our courts in endless debates about what constitutes acceptable creative expression in our media. It protects no one and assaults the constitutional rights of artists and storytellers everywhere." Of course, in these matters, it would be irresponsible for us to side with one of the two involved parties but OH MAN COME ON THE ESA IS TOTALLY RIGHT. Check out the entirety of the brief on the ESA's official site. Stay tuned -- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association will go into oral argument November 2.
EA's Jeff Green chimes in on California game law Supreme Court case
[Image Source] If you were looking for a concise explanation of why you should care about the upcoming Supreme Court review of California's oft-defeated measure to outlaw the sale of "excessively" violent games to minors, look no further than the blog of EA's Jeff Green. Then again, you've probably heard his argument before: Films have the MPAA, and games have the ESRB. Why does Gov. Schwarzenegger think the first can be self-regulated, while the second must be restricted by state law? Green worries that, should the law be reenacted, it could have "a chilling effect on the gaming industry as a whole," forcing developers to constantly second-guess the content that goes into their games. He encourages everyone who wants to voice their opinion on the bill to speak up on this ECA-penned petition.
LA Times: Parents should regulate what games kids play, not government
In one of the most well-reasoned and least sensationalized articles on government regulation of violent games we've ever seen out of the mainstream press, the Los Angeles Times recently published an editorial pointing out the unnecessary and unconstitutional nature of a recently rebuked California bill which mandated "18+" warning labels be applied to M-rated games, and enforced strict $1,000 penalties for retailers who sold such titles to minors.The editorial denotes the flawed logic which went into the bipartisan regulation, and aptly places the onus for keeping adult-centric titles out of youngsters' hands on their parental units, who "don't need permission from a legislator or judge to keep an eye on what their children are doing." We can't help but agree -- besides, with the Golden State currently staring down the barrel of a $42 billion deficit, we're not convinced that the taxpayers of California can afford to keep making such charitable donations to the ESA.
California video game law fails again in Circuit Court
The 9th Circuit Court has affirmed that the California game law is not going to fly -- so, state tax payers better prepare to write the Entertainment Software Association another check. This latest appeal was pushed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger after a lower court had seemingly killed the law by placing a permanent injunction on it. ESA president Michael Gallagher believes this is a "win" for California's citizens, stating this is a "clear signal" that this type of "reckless" legislation is an "exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time, and state resources." GamePolitics reports that Leland Yee (D) is pushing for California to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Wonder how much money the ESA would get back from fighting that?
