law
Latest
GamePolitics: Congress should grill Take Two
Dennis McCauley, the big cheese over at GamePolitics, is running an op/ed at industry-site Next-Gen.biz (the .biz is how you know they mean business!) about why, if he had his druthers, Take Two would be the ones in Congress' hot seat and not "intermediaries like [the ESA's] Doug Lowenstein and [the ESRB's] Patricia Vance."The idea is simple: Take Two and Rockstar Games are, by and large, responsible for the increasing backlash against violent games thanks to a little bit of wayward code we've all come to know and love. Yup, Hot Coffee. Point is, instead of extrapolating this one case out to represent the the entire gaming industry, Congress should isolate their investigation on this one instance. Even notable game designers like Warren Spector have called Rockstar out for their irresponsible behavior and Take Two's bungling of the controversy (lying ... eh, not such a great idea) only exacerbated the issue. McCauley's even made a list of questions for prospective congress-peoples just to get 'em started: Who conceived the Hot Coffee idea? Who created the animations? Who eventually decided to nix it from the final version? Why it wasn't removed from the disc entirely? Did insiders realize the active and highly-skilled GTA mod community would find the sex animations? Why did Rockstar and Take-Two lie about Hot Coffee when it was revealed? Why did they try to blame the mess on their biggest fans, the GTA mod community? Ouch! Those are sure to leave some bruises. So what say ye? Should Take Two and Rockstar be taking the beatings for all this anti-gaming hysteria?See also:ESRB: Lie to us, pay up to $1 million in finesTepid Coffee: Take-Two gets foreboding slap on wrist by FTCSpector clarifies GTA comments
Oklahoma guv signs violent games bill into law
GamePolitics broke the news over the weekend that Oklahoma governor Brad Henry (D) threw his John Hancock on HB3004, a little piece of legislation by Rep. Fred Morgan (R) that, by classifying them as "harmful to minors," would restrict the sale or rental of violent videogames to minors effective November 1st. Now, I understand that Oklahoma is sort of flat, but that's one slippery slope they've gotten themselves on. In a short statement, the governor wrote, "The violence in videogames has grown to epic proportions. Some video games glorify violence to a degree seldom seen in even the bloodiest movies. While parents have the ultimate responsibility for what their children do and see, this legislation is another tool to ensure that our young people are not saturated in violence. This gives parents the power to more closely regulate which games their children play."But that's not even the best part! The Oklahoma Senate took the opportunity to tack on some "unrelated language ... regarding signage around strip clubs and porn shops." Cause they're all the same thing right? How long before some pol tries to pass laws regarding gaming retailers? GTA in brown wrap? "I'll take, uh, that one ... on the top shelf. No, the tooop shelf. Yeah, with the hookers in it."While no lawsuit has been filed by the ESA, an "industry source" told GP, "ESA and EMA have vigorously responded to each of these laws that has been enacted, and they have been successful in every case. No one should expect a different course of action or result in this instance." Let's review: St. Louis unconstitutional Indianapolis unconstitutional Washington State unconstitutional Illinois unconstitutional Michigan unconstitutional Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let you have it) California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte) Minnesota (lawsuit has been filed following passage of the law) ... and now ... Oklahoma (lawsuit anticipated)
Apple hit by Swedish anti-iTunes pressure
France's iPod law came and went, and Denmark's anti-iTunes Music Store pressure didn't really seem gather a whole lot of steam; we just saw Norway turn to their own national consumer ombudsman for assistance in prying open Apple's FairPlay DRM so Apple music will, um, play fairly on other devices. But now we can tack on another to the growing number of European nations dissatisfied with Apple's DRM lockbox: Sweden. The Swedish Consumer Agency spokeswoman Marianne Aabyhammar had this to say about the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish anti-iTunes triumvirate: "iTunes' terms and conditions are illegal in all three countries," and "If iTunes fails to improve its terms and conditions in Sweden, we may take the case to Sweden's market court." Funny how this same spirit of Swedish openness drove Jens of Sweden out of business, but let's keep focused; there's no denying that we're past the tipping point, and the pressure by European states for Apple to open its music systems change its ways is only going to increase in virulence. If Apple's going to make it out of this one unscathed, it seems like they might have to seriously reconsider their business model -- at least in Europe.Update: according to iTWire, the DRM is apparently not the specific target of the Scandi triumvirate, but is rather the end user terms and conditions outlined by Apple's iTMS. Norway's Consumer Council, for example, apparently takes an anti-DMCA stance and allows for the lawful breaking of DRM for fair use purposes -- which is what's in question here. So even though the issue at hand may not be about the DRM, it's still about the DRM. And we all know (and have known) what's really at stake here is getting Apple to open up and allow people to listen to the music they bought on whichever playform they choose, right? Ok, good.
Norway takes iTMS ToS gripes to court
A consumer advocacy group in Norway is apparently not too happy with the iTMS ToS (Terms of Service) and has won a preliminary ruling in an attempt to force Apple to make some edits. Specifically, the Norwegian group is attacking Apple's liability for any security breaches their software might allow (think: "Sony rootkits"), as well as the company's 'we can edit these ToS anytime we want' policy that is outlined in said ToS. Also on the table, yet again, is the use of DRM and whether it violates fundamental consumer rights in Norway, and the proposition of a 'cooling off' period for iTMS purchases.First France, now Norway. The iTMS and its practices are taking quite the beating lately. We should take bets as to how long it will take Norwegian pro-music industry lobbyists to get these rulings fixed this time around.[via MacNN]
Power to bloggers
This ain't strictly gaming related, but there's no doubt that the decision last week by a California appeals court to grant bloggers the same First Amendment rights that are afforded to traditional journalists can be a good thing for gamers. In a nutshell, the ruling means that we can't be forced by some wicked company to divulge the source of leaked information that we post on the blog. That means that information Joystiq sources send to us (either directly or via our anonymous tips form) and that we subsequently publish is generally protected under the First Amendment. This matters, because it improves the quantity and quality of information through us to you. Of course, company insiders who are considering divulging information to an online or offline writer of any sort still need to consider whether they can trust the writer to whom they intend to dish. The basic rules of relationships still apply, but this ruling should at the very least remove worry that those who publish online are somehow less protected than those who publish on dead trees.
How to pass a violent games bill the industry won't fight [update 1]
It's simple: don't address violence. That's what happened in Maryland, where a bill recently passed prohibiting the sale (or display) of obscene games to minors. However, the definition of obscenity is restricted only to sexual content. This follows the trend of films, where you can be as violent as you want and still be on Wal-Mart shelves, while skinemax films are relegated to seedy porn shops. So it goes. As the video game industry more or less abstains from making sexually explicit content, they will not fight the law. Legislators from other states should take the hint and avoid writing sensationalist bills.[update 1: fixed a broken link]
Prisoner gets 40 more years for cellphone possession
In a decision being touted by prosecutors as a major victory in the war on inmate cellphone usage, jurors slapped Texan Michael Manor with a surprising 40-year sentence for what they considered the very serious crime of possessing a cellphone in prison. Manor, who was already serving 32 years on auto theft charges, was not even charged with using the phone for criminal purposes; rather, the long sentence comes as a result of a new zero-tolerance cellphone policy in the Texas prison system, where the offense was recently given third-degree felony status. Corrections offers are also a target of the crackdown, with prosecutors promising to bring offenders in front of juries instead of offering them probation, although there are concerns that the stricter penalties may actually make smuggling appear more lucrative.[Via textually]
Patent infringement lawsuit hits Apple
In a move that screams 'I was waiting for the right time to mention it,' Burst.com yesterday filed a patent counterclaims lawsuit against Apple Computer, claiming that their iTunes, iTMS, iPod and QuickTime Streaming infringe on four of their patents.It appears that this time around Apple actually fired first. Earlier this year, Apple asked the courts to render Burst's patents invalid, which sparked this counterclaim they filed yesterday. Burst has stated that they had hoped to avoid the courts and negotiate a "reasonable license fee," but it seems that a court is exactly where these two companies will need to settle the dispute.Check out Macworld's article if you're interested in more details surrounding the case.
Newly proposed French law does not penalize Apple
First off, I would like to note that this post is an opinion piece, and though it contains facts, the opinions contained therein are definitely biased towards open source, open standards, the freedom of software programmers, and technological innovation.France's Assemblé Nationale voted in yesterday evening the DADVSI, a rather hideous proposal which will most likely become law when France's Sénat deems it constitutional and President Chirac signs it. Both of the latter are likely as the president is of the same majority right party (UMP) as the Assemblé Nationale. The New York Times (and Slashdot) have noted incorrectly that the law will contain clauses for interoperability required of iTunes and iPods, but those amendments did not make it into the final proposal voted on Thursday night. Read on for a breakdown of the law as it currently awaits, almost certain, approval.
Ingame lawyers may soon be necessary
The complexity of massively multiplayer games is such that they are generally also called 'virtual worlds'--and as places that echo the real world, they carry with them a whole host of unanswered legal questions. GameTycoon has compiled a list of issues that are currently unresolved in various worlds, including such touchy topics as theft, copyright, indecency and gambling. Most of these are crossovers from the real world, and are a result of the anonymising nature of gaming: people of all ages and nationalities are subject to the same in-game laws, and may carry out actions in-game that are illegal for them to do in their own country. Scripted game interactions, such as killing human NPCs, are not an issue--but when other players get involved, it becomes an extremely murky area. While there have been notable lawsuits involving online game companies, it may not be long until legal action between players becomes commonplace; without ingame law enforcement to handle it, these 'virtual' issues may soon become very real indeed. [via GamePolitics] [Updated to fix minor typo]
