Sign in to follow this  
Niyeaux

Have y'all been following this HR287 business?

Recommended Posts

People were complaining about the Steam Greenlight fee of $100, and you're wanting to put out a barrier 8 times that size?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Remember, this only applies to games people wish to sell. I personally can't imagine it will extend down to indie games, in reality, though. It's impossible to realistically enforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sucks and is gross. People shouldn't have to submit to government evaluation in order to sell a piece of creative work, let alone pay for the privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sucks and is gross. People shouldn't have to submit to government evaluation in order to sell a piece of creative work, let alone pay for the privilege.

What are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Remember, this only applies to games people wish to sell. I personally can't imagine it will extend down to indie games, in reality, though. It's impossible to realistically enforce.

The law as currently written covered any game for sale period. I would hope that any sort of final version would be a little more nuanced, but I have lost hope in getting such things from the law makers here. I certainly don't want to see a broken law passed, and then fixed two years later with an ammendment.

More than anything I want Video games to get the same consideration as any other type of media. It's unfair that Video games are getting singled out when the MPAA didn't have to have a meeting with Biden and no one would think of forcing books to be rated before they are sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Govtrack.us (a nifty website that lets you track any bill introduced before congress) has this bill rated with a 3% percent of getting past committee, so I think it's safe to say that this bill is dead in the water: http://www.govtrack....bills/113/hr287

And nobody forced the video games industry to go to a meeting with the VP, they merely excepted an invitation. Personally, I welcome any study into the connection between violence and video games; the more evidence that proves there's a no real verifiable connection between the two, the harder it will be for politicians to use games a scapegoat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I'm not necessarily against the concept of this bill provided the following (very unlikely) concessions

1) All media, including music, books, movies, TV, and games have to submit to this scrutiny

2) There is no charge for the rating

3) The rating is done by a government entitiy, not a private or non-profit organziation

4) There remains legal ways to sell rated R and X content to those adults who desire it

Yeah, this would address pretty much all my issues with the bill. Make it apply to all media, cost nothing, and be run by the government.

Most importantly, nothing should be refused a rating. Rate it R or X or AO or whatever, but absolutely nothing should be refused a rating and effectively banned from sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you referring to?

You know, the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act’.


SEC. 2. RATING LABEL REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEO GAMES.

(a) Conduct Prohibited- It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.

( B) Requirement of Retailers To Post Ratings Information- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate rules requiring all retail establishments engaged in the sale of video games to display, in a clear and conspicuous location, information about the content rating system of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. Such rules shall prescribe the information required to be displayed concerning the basic age-based content ratings of such Board.


SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON SALES AND RENTALS OF ADULT-RATED VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent--

  • (1) any video game containing a content rating of ‘Adults Only’ (as determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board) to any person under the age of 18; or
    (2) any video game containing a content rating of ‘Mature’ (as determined by such Board) to any person under the age of 17.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(a) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of sections 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)( B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)( B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.

( B) Penalty- Notwithstanding section 5(m) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(m)), any person who violates section 2 or 3 of this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per violation.

Please, explain the bill to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its not shut down in voting I'll be enormously surprised if the EFF doesn't get it scratched for being completely unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, explain the bill to me.

The bill does not require games to undergo "Government Evaluation". The ESRB is an organization run by the games industry itself. It's self-regulation. Therefore Chris's evaluation that it was "gross" to be forced to submit entertainment for "government evaluation" is completely wrong. (Unless he's referring to Dewar's preferred solution, where he suggested government evaluation as an alternative... Which is why I asked.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was slightly off in calling it government evaluation, but this case would be just as bad (for a nice little expose on some of the problems with ratings boards, watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated). Forcing evaluation on one particular medium, regardless of which organization is doing the evaluation, is a gross restriction of free expression. I don't think this is necessarily a completely insidious bill, just completely ill-advised: The sponsor of the bill is Representative Jim Matheson, who doesn't seem to be getting funding from the entertainment industry or the NRA, and, predictably for a Utah rep, his biggest campaign financiers are Pharmaceutical companies, and to-date there don't appear to be any contributions linked with this bill. I think he's just catering to his Mormon constituents, and I doubt it'll even get past the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

By the way, here's a link to the bill's official web page if you want to keep track on the official progress. Atm there isn't any. I think Argobot is right in thinking this'll just die off without a second thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was slightly off in calling it government evaluation...

He wasn't slightly off, it's a completely different thing! Self-regulation is not the same as government regulation. The bill specifically names the ESRB at the regulating body. Enforcing self-regulation is not the same as being regulated by the government.

Jesus, not another argument over nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enforcing self-regulation is not the same as being regulated by the government.

There is such a legal entity as a Self Regulating Organization, which does have special powers, but that's misleading because we're talking about a system that's literally completely self-regulated. We're talking about enforced regulation of creative expression, not financial securities. In this country, that's illegal, with the notable exception of broadcasts over public airwaves (ShitPissFuckCuntCocksuckerMotherfuckerTits), and the provisions granted by copyrights. Also pornography isn't considered creative expression, which is arguable but it's been settled ages ago.

Anywayyou'rewrongkthxbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how being forced by the government to submit to a rating body you have no real influence on is any better if the government doesn't run the body, but only makes you submit to it it. Like, if the law says you have to go to prison, but the prison is being run by a private company (as many US prisons are), surely you wouldn't argue that the government isn't throwing anyone in prison, right? The government is forcing you into the private prison! Just like this bill would force game makers to submit to the ESRB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thunderpeel comes from a country that says it's illegal to show footage of Parliament in comedy shows, so I'll assume he has a slightly different understanding of freedom of speech than Americans do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well, up until a 2009, newspapers weren't allowed to publish photos of caskets for the soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I think we have some equally messed up ideas about 'free speech.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thunderpeel comes from a country that says it's illegal to show footage of Parliament in comedy shows, so I'll assume he has a slightly different understanding of freedom of speech than Americans do. Which isn't necessarily wrong, but it doesn't really completely apply to us.

Oh Christ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well, up until a 2009, newspapers weren't allowed to publish photos of caskets for the soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I think we have some equally messed up ideas about 'free speech.'

Touché. DoD has had an unusual relationship with free expression ever since Schenck v. United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say the difference is? Like, if I'm making a game and the law says I have to have it rated by the ESRB, what would be the difference for me if the ESRB is run by the government vs. if it isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's not self-regulatory if the government is regulating the industry insofar as legally requiring games to be rated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, it's worse.

Yeah, it's not self-regulatory if the government is regulating the industry insofar as legally requiring games to be rated.

I think his argument is based on something that exists in the financial industry that isn't technically government run but is empowered by the government to regulate. Which doesn't change it from being a thing we don't like. Or make it any more likely this bill will be passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me tell you something about Thunder...

That is presumptuous and rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this