game-law
Latest
The Lawbringer: Euro-ver my head, contract law edition
Welcome to the Lawbringer, your weekly stop at the intersection of law and Warcraft. I am your crossing guard, trying desperately to not get run over myself. First, I want to apologize for being a day late, but my week was spent preparing for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. Unfortunately, the test was channeling Illidian. If I get a letter in a few weeks saying that I'm not yet responsible enough to be a lawyer, I will not be surprised. Anyway, on to this week's promised topic: European Contract Law. We'll be approaching the same topics we covered on my side of the pond: contract formation, contract termination, and unfairness. These concepts form the basis of players' relationship with Blizzard, just like they do in the US. Whether Blizzard has the right to publish information about your avatars, ban you from the game, delete your achievements, or force you to resolve disputes in a mediation are all affected by the laws of the country in which a player resides. The first challenge in this column is that there traditionally has been no "European" contract law; these issues were decided at a national level through the home country's common or civil law system. Trans-nationalism being all the rage, however, the politicos of the European Union have formed the Commision on European Contract Law which has drafted Principles of European Contract Law. A Common Frame of Reference "toolbox" to help various European legislatures standardize the various laws of contract across the continent to match these Principles. What this means, though, is that this law is in a state of flux -- and I am not a barrister, abogada, rechtsanwalt, advokat, or avocat. Take everything in this column with a big grain of salt. And possibly a margarita to wash it down.
The Lawbringer: Contracts and player bans
Welcome to The Lawbringer, where we investigate the intersection of law and Warcraft and answer such questions as what do you call a raid of lawyers in the Maelstrom. Answer? A good start. Last week, we looked at what is private about our armory profiles. Hint: not much. But, life has a funny way of providing a use for things we thought were annoying. Check out this email we received Saturday: "Two days ago I lost my wedding ring. Of course my wife of 4 years finds it odd and starts to question what I do at night while she is at work. After hours of arguing, I remember about the WoW Armory. I rush to the PC and show her almost minute by minute what I was doing at night. She knows my characters and knew it was my character, and the Armory showed her everything."So remember, guys and dolls, the Armory can convert your spouse's infidelity aggro to regular WoW aggro. Use at your own risk. Today, we're going to look at losing the ability to play WoW, such as with player bans like the one given to Ensidia a few weeks ago. However, just as understanding how one gets into a contract helps in understanding how that contract affects players, learning about how to get out of a contract helps in understanding how bans affect players.
The Lawbringer: Contracts and the achievement tracker
Welcome to this week's episode of the Lawbringer! Each week we'll dive into the intricacies of law and the World of Warcraft. Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to slay demons of ignorance for the benefit of your fellow denizens of Azeroth. Demons of ignorance slain: 1/4782*. *Number of ignorant demons may be subject to nerfing. So last week I introduced y'all to a bit of legal theorizing about how law and WoW might mix if they got pugged together. (Hint: not very well.) Y'all also were clamoring for my dissertation on gold farming. I want to give a big thank you to commentator Arnold for his excellent suggestions for improvements to make, and I promise I will be making those corrections soon. This week we'll be moving into some more concrete topics, prompted by a email from my mailbag: The new armory prints out date and timestamps for every little move you make in game. Run a heroic, it will show the date and time for every boss you kill. I didn't mind when it printed a date for achievements. But such fine-grained detail being so publicly available is .. invasive of privacy. This is an excellent issue, Wendy, and a subject of much qq-ing on the forums. However, before we can look into what privacy Blizzard may be invading, we need to understand our relationship with Blizzard; to do that, we need to look at a bit of contract law.
The Lawbringer: WoW and the magic circle
Welcome to Lawbringer! Each week we'll dive into the intricacies of law and the World of Warcraft. In the column's introductory edition we look at the magic circle, which isn't just something you summon demons and teleport around in... Law and Warcraft -- sounds like a crazy mashup. Does this mean I can sue that bear and tree combo that chain pulled HoS to Krystallus then dropped group mid fight to wipe the DPS that had the temerity to suggest maybe the tank shouldn't kite the Maiden through the hallway? (You know who you are.) Get a court order to silence those Anal [Skills to Pay the Bills] spamming pricks in trade chat? Help Marshall Dougan string up those goblin ganking Bloodsail Buccaneer rep grinders for piracy? Get rogues thrown in the Stormwind Stockades for picking Hogger's pocket? Sadly, the answer is no. Law and Warcraft intersect in far less entertaining and yet much more important ways. Contract law is obviously important with the End User License Agreement and Terms of Use defining our relationship with Blizzard. Copyright concerns come up quite a bit, as after all, the story, code, sights, and sounds of the World of Warcraft are protected by copyright. Computer fraud, regular fraud, and taxation are issues that arise with gold farming/trading (and occasionally gold digging, but that's not so much a problem in WoW.) We've seen recently with several WoW.com articles that Blizzard has been cooperating with local law enforcement to bring criminals to justice or help resolve the mystery of a runaway teen; privacy law is a huge concern for both players and Blizzard. Conflict resolution is how some of these legal questions are resolved, but that may involve arbitration, lawsuits, a crash course of the American civil justice system, and people like me. That's right, I'm one of those horrible nasty lawyer types. Well, not quite – I'm in my third and last year of law school, specializing in intellectual property law. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are what I've studied, and I have a job drafting and prosecuting patents since after all, student loans don't get paid off by playing WoW. If you really want proof of my bona fide law cred, you can read my thirty two page dissertation on gold farming. But how does one distinguish between a problem that is resolvable with law, such as a privacy concern, and one that is just something we have to live with, like moronic tanks and DPS in the Random Dungeon Finder? Academics, needing to justify their cushy tenure positions, have come up with a concept known as "The Magic Circle."
Utah senate passes gaming retail restriction bill
After breezing through the Utah House of Representatives with an overwhelming vote of 70 for and two against, HB 353, a piece of legislation authored by Jack Thompson and legislator Mike Morley which enforces strict penalties on retailers who sell M-rated games (and R-rated movies) to "buyers subject to an age restriction or recommendation," found a similar reception in the state senate -- it was approved with a vote of 25 for and four against earlier today.We now have three consecutive events to eagerly anticipate -- first, the bill must be approved by Utah governor Jon Huntsman before it's officially adopted. Second, the new policy will go into effect on January 1, 2010. Finally, we wait to hear how the ESA will spend the humongous legal fee reimbursement check that the taxpayers of Utah will indirectly cut when the bill is likely found unconstitutional. Perhaps some sort of tropical outing for their employees? We hear the beaches of Costa Rica are simply breathtaking.
Utah game retail restriction bill passes House
HB 353, a piece of Utah legislation which enforces stricter penalties against game and film retailers who sell M-rated and R-rated content to "buyers subject to an age restriction or recommendation,' and which was authored by Rep. Mike Morley and former Miami attorney Jack Thompson, passed through the Utah House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 70 for and two against. It will now make its way to Utah's state senate -- should it pass there as well, it will go to the desk of Gov. Jon Huntsman to be signed into law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2010.The bill passed by an overwhelming margin after a number of amendments to the legislation were approved by the House. The amendments were largely tacked on to the bill in an attempt to lower the hackles of disapproving retailers -- for instance, one addition keeps retailers from suffering the harsher penalties if an underage customer lies about his or her age when purchasing a mature product. In response, we anticipate Utah's fake mustache industry to see a threefold rise in revenue during the next fiscal year.
Utah game bill one step closer, Thompson speaks to Joystiq
Whoever said being a Bar-licensed, practicing lawyer had anything to do with amending existing laws has clearly never met Jack Thompson. Thompson's most recent game bill, authored by Representative Mike Morley and Mr. Thompson, was resoundingly passed (at 10-3) by the Business and Labor Committee of the Utah House of Representatives yesterday. What does this mean for Utah residents? Well, nothing yet, as the bill is now headed off to the full Utah House of Representatives for consideration. If the bill goes into law, however, retailers of all varieties in the state (from big-box outlets like Best Buy and Wal-Mart to independent theater owners) will be facing a $2000 fine for every documented sale of mature-rated content to a minor. We wanted some clarification on the law and it's possible ramifications, so we went straight to the source. After the jump you can see for yourself everything Mr. Thompson told us about his recently penned bill.
ESA receives $282,794 reimbursement from California
The ESA, after a series of recent blows, is certainly becoming a more transparent organization -- and adding just a hint of badass to its rep. As a warning to all the other states out there looking to take on the industry with unconstitutional legislation, the ESA has placed an image of California's $282,794 legal fee reimbursement check in its latest press release. That's like the business equivalent of putting your enemy's head on a stick on the front lawn.The ESA states that "California deserves more" than politicians pursuing "flawed legislation" and lists several places that California would have been better served spending the cash on (listed after the break). Most depressingly for California taxpayers is that this check isn't even the end of the story. The state is currently appealing the judge's injunction on the game law. Meaning, if the courts maintain the same ruling, then the ESA is going to get even more cash from California's piggy bank.
New York governor signs 'unnecessary' game law
New York Governor David Patterson has signed some of the most ... well, put it this way, if you like the government wasting time, then you're going to love the recently signed New York game bill. GamePolitics reports the legislation establishes an advisory council to conduct a study between games and real-world violence. It also requires -- here's the kicker -- new video game consoles to incorporate parental lockout features by 2010 and retail games to disclose ESRB ratings. News flash: All consoles already have parental lockout features built in and ESRB ratings are prominently displayed on each game's box and disc.For its part, the Entertainment Software Association believes the law ignores "legal precedent, common sense and the wishes of many New Yorkers in enacting this unnecessary bill." It points out that the mandates required are already voluntarily in place and the bill unfairly singles out the video game industry. The ESA asks if New York would like to convene a government commission on books, theater and film as well. It's still up in the air if the ESA will sue New York, but the lobby group has gotten good at getting game laws overturned in several states and making its money back for doing so in the process.
Minnesota pays ESA $65k in legal fees
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) announced today that the state of Minnesota has paid $65,000 – that's $6.50 for every lake – in attorney's fees and expenses to the organization over its unconstitutional game law. The ESA claims it has now been awarded moneys totaling almost $2 million for fees and expenses incurred by defending the industry in other jurisdictions.Bringing out fightin' words, ESA CEO Mike Gallagher said that Minnesota's taxpayers should be "outraged" by having to pay this bill after its elected officials ignored precedent and pursued a political agenda. Gallagher wants politicians to get behind the efforts of the ESRB "rather than continue to pursue unconstitutional legislation."
GamePolitics speaks with federal game bill sponsor, ESA deems bill unconstitutional
GamePolitics has an interview with Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb), one of the congressmen, along with Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), attempting to pass a federal law forcing retailers to check IDs before selling M- and AO-rated games. One of the better moments in the interview is when GP asks Rep. Terry what game he was talking about when he stated there are titles players could score point for virtual rape. Terry responded, "That's a good question. I don't know of any [specific games] offhand... I just used the rape, pillage and plunder line..."The ESA has publicly come out against the bill, with CEO Mike Gallagher saying that the bill is unconstitutional. He states the ESA shares the representatives' goals of "ensuring children are playing parent-approved computer and video games," but points out that all consoles now have parental settings which can be used to make sure kids play only the games their parents allow.
Mass. legislators considering 'games-as-porn' bill
Tomorrow the Massachusetts legislature will discuss a bill that would make it illegal for minors to buy video games deemed too violent by the state (not through ESRB ratings such as M or AO). No similar law exists for movies, music or books. House Bill 1423 is dubbed a "games-as-porn" bill because the rationale used to prevent minors from buying violent video games is the same used on porn. The original bill was drafted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (pictured) with assistance from Jack Thompson and legislative sponsor Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D).GamePolitics points out HB1423 is based on a failed Utah bill and, given the history of other similar bills, it seems odd that Massachusetts would potentially be putting itself (and taxpayer dollars) at risk of repaying the ESA for fighting this bill in court.
Supreme Court's Scalia believes game laws could be constitutional
LawsofPlay's Anthony Prestia gained audience with US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to ask him what he thought about the game laws we've seen shot down one by one, by two, by three, over the years. Scalia, traditionally one of the most conservative members of the court, believes that constitutional precedent holds that minors may be subjected to prohibitions that adults aren't.Scalia's remarks imply that if a game law banning the sale of mature-rated games to minors ever made it to the docket he would affirm it -- really, no shock there. He clarifies that this would not put a ban on parents buying M-rated games for their children and that he believes video games (as long as it isn't declared "obscene") are protected by the First Amendment. As stated before, many lower courts clearly don't hold Justice Scalia's beliefs.[Via GamePolitics]
NY Times: Game law probably won't 'pass muster' in courts
We've been saying it all along, but maybe if the New York Times says it, the politicians will finally listen. In an editorial the NYT says violent and sexually explicit games can be bad, "but banning them as [Governor] Spitzer and legislators want to do probably will not pass muster in the courts." They point out that Illinois spent $1.5 million defending their law which was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Guess who's next New York? The ESA is watching.Unlike the silliness going on in England over Resistance and the Church, these New York bills aren't the actions of the naive. Gov. Spitzer et al. aren't unaware how severe their actions are, they know full well what they're doing. Despite this, they continue charging like a bull headfirst into a courtroom which will just take the cash out of New York taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the ESA for their court bills (and don't forget having to pay the New York attorneys who'll have to defend the legislation). As one commenter on GamePolitics put it, "The reason they think the bills won't fail is because they have something that the other bills didn't have ... a REALLY good feeling about this."[Via GamePolitics]
Rock the vote with legislative measures in 2007
Like a certain caffeinated beverage prepared from delicious roasted beans, video game legislation was hot in 2006. Whether it was hidden whoopie in your Grand Theft Auto or ambulance chasers run amok, last year saw more games hitting the halls of congress than ever before.To make sure you're prepared for this years gauntlet of gaming based initiatives, 2old2play has compiled a short list of measures currently being considered in a few scattered states. Measures range from wanting stricter ratings, all the way to fining a sales clerk up to $100 bucks should they not lecture you about the content of your violent video game. Yikes.You can help out now by contributing to the list with the measures currently being proposed in your state. Regardless, be a real hardcore gamer and educate yourself on something that matters. The enemy patterns in Ikaruga will be will be there when you're done.
South Korea loosens game censorship
Game censorship is a big news item in the past few months. Political types of all walks of life enjoy trying to stifle the medium by passing laws that don't hold up in court in the US and even get through without much of a hitch in Europe. On the other side of the world, one nation is going the opposite direction. South Korea, which recently proposed an anti-gold farming bill, has pulled censorship on games depicting military action against their northern neighbor. Under the ban, any game that was negative toward North Korea was not permitted for sale in the South, citing they would only inflame the existing tension. However, wiser South Korean lawmakers finally realized video games have little impact on the real world, cut the rule and games like Ghost Recon 2 can now be sold. Lawmakers from the West take note; South Korea has the right idea. When they're sitting right next to an unstable tin-pot dictator and decide that games aren't going to cause a mass invasion, we should start reassessing this whole "games make people violent" kick. Our only hope is wiser people end up in leadership positions who actually try to solve problems instead of deflecting the responsibility on an unrelated party.
