Bang... Bang... Your Virtually Dead

Legal information:

Legislation: HB 1009
State: Washington
Sponsor: Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (Democrat)
Description: To fine and ban the sale of violent video games to minors ( under age 17) which portrays violence to police officers.
Status: Passed and first of its kind in the country but later declared unconstitutional

Blogger’s Bit: As we grow up we are socialized to respect and honor the civil servants who put their personal well being on the line for the American public everyday. But everyday in Movies and in video games Police officers are the targets or crimes and violence. It is something we cannot hide from. It is more disturbing to me the length at which video games such as Grand Theft Auto , Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Postal III and Minority Report: Everybody Runs exploit violence on police officers. Their is a fair amount of research done on violence first player games and how they effect individuals and most of this research points in the negative direction . It has been Highly publicized that The United States military uses violent video games to desensitize shooters and to teach them how to kill. Why would we want video games which are used for this reason to be altered and used for the purpose of hurting and creating victims of our police officers. I don’t see a reason in which injuring police officers are something which should be sold to children younger than 17 if sold at all.

The unconstitutionality of this was challenged and brought down in a following lawsuit. The reason for the overturning of its constitutionality is blamed on the broad language of the statute and its ability with this broad language to infringe on the freedom of speech promised by the First Amendment.

The first amendment does state.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I am a firm believer of all these freedoms and the actions they protect but I just feel as though these actions just like spices should be used to their fullest extent sparingly. Where do we draw the line between having the ability to show and allow gamers to shoot police officers and the actual usage of it in a game.


Picture used with a Creative Commons Liscense http://www.flickr.com/photos/shadey_shades/4091048140/sizes/m/in/photostream/

You can play my song… Just not my sound.

The Legal Facts:

Plaintiff: The Romantics

Defendant: Activision Inc

Allegation: Activision is the creator of the best selling series of guitar hero games. The Romantics song “ What I Like About You”. Is used along with about 30 other songs in the series 80’s music installment. Activision to the necessary precautions needed to secure the rights of the music and used a cover of the band as to not involve the original artists. The Romantics are not seeking any claim to copyright infringement but are suing Activision for loss of their own right to their likeness. The Romantics seek unspecified damages and an injunction, which would stop the further sale of the game.

Judgement: A Detroit Federal Judge ruled against the Romantics and for Activision Inc.

Reasoning: Activision had acted in good faith by securing the rights to record a cover version of the contested song.

Blogger’s Bit: Ok. I see no good outcome of this lawsuit for the Romantics. First of all the Romantics did not have to many hits to begin with and in pretty sure “ What I Like About You” , is the biggest they had. Guitar Hero is one of the more recently successful franchises of games out there today. It opens up the world of music to a new generation and allows children and adults of all ages to enjoy music while competing. In the game itself eyery song is giving attribution to the writers and the original artists. Do the Romantics not realize how much money they are probably making from the usage of their song in the game? They may not be making money from Activision Inc. itself but how many people have downloaded that song after hearing it for the first time on the game? How many younger audiences ( born after the 80’s) have bought their music after finally being introduced to it. I understand The Romantics feel that they lost their likeness but maybe they should look at the big picture. Besides making themselves look money hungry and as though they have nothing else better to do with their lives than litigation over their only real hit, it makes them look bad. Romantics take the free publicity from the game for what its worth. You don’t have to sue to get your name out there, let the game do its job.

Photo used with a Creative Commons License:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robert-corr/3208743123/in/photostream/

What? What! Im Addicted!!

The Legal Facts:

Plaintiff: Craig Smallwood of Hawaii
Defendant: NCsoft of South Korea

Allegation: NCsoft knowingly created an addicting videogame ( Lineage 2) and put it on the market without any kind of warning to consumers. The Plaintiff then became addicted to said videogame due to his lack of knowledge of its addictive qualities. Claims he would have never played if he knew of risk. Legal claims against NCsoft include negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Status: Judgment pending

Bloggers Bit:
Ok, we all understand that America has become a society, which strives on litigation. But really, they didn’t tell me that the game could be addicting so I didn’t know? I feel this is a weak argument but I have seen cases weaker than this change the life and world, as we know it. If this successfully goes through the legal system and the decision falls to thee Plaintiff, our children may grow up with video games that not only have a rating system but addiction warning labels. There were many other claims thrown at Croft not just the claims of negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The presiding judge threw out the other claims even before it went to trial. What else is there to try and use to legally prove the point that the video game made you addicted and it wasn’t your fault?

The main question this lawsuit places to me is when do Americans take responsibility for their own actions. When do they stop pushing the “buck” or their own issues onto other organizations, individuals or apparently items? I didn’t make myself fat the cheeseburger did it! I didn’t mean to get addicted to the game but the makers made it addicting! Where is the level of responsibility? If we totally negate this level and allow our poor actions to be blamed on the ignorance of all things then where does that leave us. I whole hearted understand that there are addictive items, behaviors and personalities in the world. And I understand addiction is a disease but anyone can become addicted to anything it is just how the individual handles it. I feel if Americans continue down this road, chocolate, facebook and malls will all have warning labels too. I just don’t see litigation like this leading anywhere good for the American people.


Photo used with a Creative Commons License
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicecupoftea/3085333836/sizes/m/in/photostream/