Another Legislator Hops On Board The 'Violent Video Game' Bandwagon; Introduces Redundant Labeling Bill
from the Rated-M-for-'Moronic' dept
Recent events have returned video games (especially "violent" ones) back to their normal position as convenient grandstand/whipping boy (or girl, you sexist)/political football. Vice President Joe Biden recently met with representatives of the video game industry to inform them that they were just as responsible as the NRA for recent tragic events, and even if not, they'd be mentioned frequently in the same headlines. (The NRA also placed the blame on video games -- quite possibly the only issue on which it saw eye-to-eye with Biden.) New Jersey governor Chris Christie recently declared the M-rated "Call of Duty" games were not welcome in his home, quite possibly because he has four children and it's an M-rated game. And President Obama has called for a thorough study of any possible connection between gun violence and video games to be performed by the CDC.So, it is with feigned shock that I pass on the news that a politician has introduced a bill aimed at violent video games -- one that looks to "implement" stuff we already have, only with Uncle Sam in charge.
In the wake of President Barack Obama's announcement that the CDC would study the effects of violent video games and other media, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) has introduced bill H.R. 287, which would "require ratings label on video games" and "prohibit the sales and rentals of adult-rated video games to minors."Ratings labels, eh? You mean like these handy things that have been slapped all over video games for the past 19 years?
Oh, and "prohibit the sales and rentals of adult-rated [?] video games to minors?" You mean the sort of thing that nearly every respectable retailer has been voluntarily doing for nearly as long?
I understand that politicians are generally allergic to terms like "voluntary" and "self-regulating" and are more partial to terms like "government oversight" and "mandatory" and "nanny state," especially when the prevailing winds favor doing a bit of "something" in response to tragedy. But to force a redundant system into use in order to enforce a standards system that has worked well for years is not only a self-serving, needless expansion of government power, it's just plain stupid.
Matheson's bill would make it mandatory for all games available for sale or rent to sport a rating label, something that nearly every commercially distributed game already features. (Many indie games distributed exclusively via download do not carry these labels, as they are rarely submitted to the ESRB.) Strangely, Matheson's bill relies on the ESRB to provide the rating, rather than turn it over to another agency.
(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.It also requires retailers to post rating information, as supplied by the ESRB. Again, most retailers already do this voluntarily. This goes beyond redundant and into some bizarre coattail-riding territory in which the government piggybacks its agenda onto an existing system and, presumably, rewards itself with raises and high-fives shortly thereafter.
The only difference between what exists now and Matheson's "bold" "vision" for the future is the weight of government enforcement.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent--Matheson turns this enforcement over to the Federal Trade Commission, adding an "up to $5,000" fine to any violations. Once again, the question is why? All this does is add a layer of unneeded regulation and fines to a system that a majority of game buyers and sellers feel is working just fine. This is just Matheson turning a system from voluntary to mandatory just so he can appear "tough on video games," which is a terrible plank for any platform.
(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.
On the upside (for us -- not so much for Rep. Jim Matheson), legislation tracking site, govtrack.us, currently gives the bill (as it stands) a 3% chance of getting past committee and only a 1% chance of being enacted. Part of this is due to the fact that many other states have tried (and failed) to enact government regulation of video games, something the Supreme Court declared violated the First Amendment. Another factor is the general inactivity level of our representatives (often considered "ideal" by small government types) which has resulted in only 11% of bills making it past committee and only 2% into actual law.
For now, it's more of the same old video game scapegoating, with this effort being surprisingly lazy in its approach. It's cyclical and repetitive, like EA's release schedule -- comforting in its familiarity and unsurprising in its lack of imagination.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, jim matheson, labeling, video games, violent video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Typical Governmental efficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is not money, and it's not really effort either. The problem is that actually fixing thigs usually falls into either or both of the following categories:
1/ Most ways to actually fix something are usually unpopular with and/or negatively financially impact a significant part of the population. Since most people ultimately only hear the soundbites, this is tantamount to political suicide and therefore not usually popular among politicians.
2/ Most of the rest of the ways to actually fix things will negatively impact some major industry and said industry will make sure it has "contributed" to enough political campaigns. Given that's it's all but impossible to get elected without significant chunks of money, going against a major industry's wishes is also typically tantamount to political suicide and in fact worse career suicide as then they don't even get a cushy job in industry after political life. This is even less popular than option 1.
Of course many of the best real solutions hit both of the above and you therefore have a better chance of winning the lottery 3 straight weeks than seeing one happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's about all there is to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've got to be scum even by politician standards to try and pull a fast one like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be kinda funny if the report they commission to look like they are 'doing something' contradicts their own position on the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shops already limit who they sell to and so young kids simply can't buy these games directly. What they can do though is pester mummy and daddy to buy it for them or they can borrow it from their brother or their friends brother.
Essentially what I am trying to say is this won't affect the people they are trying to target but will just add another layer of annoyance for consumers and vendors alike.
Presumably it will also put a massive new compliance burden on India games since now they'll have to get their games rated. I don't know if that costs but it will certainly be a hassle and potentially will slow down releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not even convinced its language is sufficient to require such ratings and displays for games distributed digitally or not physically packaged, a vast and ever-growing category of video games these days.
In short, this bill fits the classic definition of "worse than useless": it creates bureaucracy and waste, it won't work as intended, and even if it did, it wouldn't solve the nonexistent problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> rating of every game sold on retail shelves
Yep, and if it's not sold on shelves-- if it's sold via web site download-- then the law apparently doesn't apply, since it requires the rating to be applied to the game's packaging. Web downloads have no packaging.
And even if it did apply, it would be trivially easy to set up a site through a foreign server to sell one's game. If it's sold from outside the US, then US laws don't apply, no matter how much the DOJ tries to pretend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Rather, it would make all such sales illegal, since the bill states that is unlawful to distribute the game without that label.
"And even if it did apply, it would be trivially easy to set up a site through a foreign server to sell one's game. If it's sold from outside the US, then US laws don't apply, no matter how much the DOJ tries to pretend otherwise."
That might work with a truly foreign company, but if this was done with software made in the US there's no way that would fly. If you make the software in California and then send it to a server in Barbados and somebody from Wisconsin buys it, that would still unquestionably be "interstate commerce". Even if it was sold to someone in California they'd still consider it "interstate commerce" if one packet went through one out of state node. (There's a good chance they'd STILL try to call it interstate commerce even if it never left the state, because it involves the Internet... remember the case of the farmer whose crops were declared by the Supreme Court to be "interstate commerce" even though they never left his own farm?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> then send it to a server in Barbados and
> somebody from Wisconsin buys it, that would
> still unquestionably be "interstate commerce".
The government has the burden to prove where the software was created. Can they prove he didn't write his game while hanging out in Barbados?
And I'd also love to see the legal definition of 'video game' they come up with. If they're going to require all video games have this warning, they have to legally define what is and is not a video game. Such a definition would have to be broad enough to cover everything they want to regulate, but narrow enough avoid sweeping in a whole shit-ton of other applications and web sites under its umbrella. I feel sorry for the poor bastard on the congressional staff that's given that job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think before you legislate
What constitutes a game, or for that matter distribution? I assume this will pertain to all the apps in iOS and android app stores. And all the ones on distributed on personal websites or posted on forums. Remember how everyone had games on their TI-85 calculators in school and all you needed was a link cable to transfer them to your friends? BAM! $5000 fine! And don't even tell me that we can rely on the common sense and leniency of prosecutors to overlook the incidental infractions.
How do these people not realize that their efforts target a much wider audience than they intent? Oh, right because they know nothing about what they're legislating and haven't asked anyone to help sort it out. Can we get a law passed that fines legislators for poorly drafted, overly broad and useless bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think before you legislate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think before you legislate
This issue has been solved so many times... why does nothing ever stay solved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think before you legislate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man that's one fucked up political system you lot have over there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you got that wrong. This law is not OK either. It won't pass, and if it does it will get stuck down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We'll be a much happier, controlled society.
Have you taken your happy pill today? The computer is your friend!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Run On Guns Has Now Forced Poor Robbers To Stick Up Banks At Hammerpoint"
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/alaska/hammerpoint-bank-robbery-846793
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When I first heard about this the other night, I instantly derided the bill as idiotic garbage. Not only is enforcement of sales to age groups by the VOLUNTARILY IMPLEMENTED ratings system by the ESRB been declared unconstitutional (ask a handful of states that passed it and had it overturned by courts, thus paying millions to ACLU lawyers), but the other half of the bill is also horrible.
Declaring that any game cannot be created (and sold) from inside one's garage-band website without review by a third-party VOLUNTARY ratings system goes against too many principles our country is proud of. Imagine musicians cannot sell their music without going to a board to make sure songs with bad lyrics have an age rating. Imagine an author not being able to sell his book online because he didn't take it to a board for mature content first. Imagine an artist being unable to sell a painting without it going to a board of other artists for approval first.
Not to mention that the vast majority of games sold ALREADY have and SELF ENFORCE said ratings system. I don't know of a single store that doesn't "card" it's customers for mature video games already. I don't know of a single store that will sell a game without a rating already on the box (unrated are as bad as AO, which NOBODY sells). In order to even release a game for all the consoles (which is a majority of game sales) you must have an ESRB rating before you can be licensed to make it for said game system.
The only location this will stop are the various "indie" developers that are making the games people WANT to play. They do it out of their own pocket expenses, sell it on their own websites, and keep all their money. They don't want to be fined up to $5000 for every copy they sell because they didn't go to some third party group and beg them to rate their game (at their own expense, mind you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EA Burn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How this would be used...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this passes...
Oh, and get ready for the ESRB to increase fees associated with rating games because they get a forced monopoly on the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forced Monopoly
Like Monsanto actually pushing for stricter EPA laws.
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Monsanto-Paid-Protection-EPA.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forced Monopoly
I'm really not sure if it's worse if Matheson honestly thinks this is a good idea, or knows it's bad and introduced this bill anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless of course the NRA decided it actually supports gun violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyclical and repetitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cyclical and repetitive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lucky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music and movies are notably absent...
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/04/violentkidsent.shtm
In 2010, 33% of 13-16 year olds were able to purchase an R-rated movie ticket. This is compared to 28% in 2009.
64% of kids were able to buy a CD with a Parental Advisory Warning, down from 72% in 2009.
38% of kids were able to buy an R-rated DVD, and 47% were able to buy an unrated DVD. This is down from 54% and 58% in 2009
And the moment you've all been waiting for...
A whopping THIRTEEN PERCENT (13%) were able to purchase an M-rated game, compared to 20% in 2009. In fact, if you examine the graph, video games retailer are the only monotonically decreasing retailers. They went from 85% in 2000 to 13% in 2010 - unheard of in the entertainment industry.
If anything, movies and music should take a cue from video games on how to enforce entertainment ratings. Perhaps Rep. Matheson should pass a bill targeting those industries instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is, it takes more than just watching fictional violence to go out and do violent acts, you must be encouraged by other factors as well, it must be acceptable inside your social group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great create more laws that turn something into criminal behavior that we can't enforce fully, but will have to all pay for it and suffer from abusive law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which brings up another point. In the article it stated sell or rent. How would that affect any of the "FREE" games available, which make their money from in game cash shops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gives the ESRB the legal power to veto the sale of any video game to minors. If nothing else, you're restraining them from selling to ANYONE until the ESRB gets around to rating the game. There's no way this could be constitutional.
Which then brings up the question: do the people supporting this bill think it's somehow constitutional, do they know it's unconstitutional and don't care, or did they not even stop to think about whether it was constitutional?
And while we're at it...
"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."
What happens if you go to an online games site? Is that considered a "video game"? Does it matter if you can pay a bit of money for extra content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaaand viola.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is kinda funny, though. A government official taking a stand against a game that makes heroes out of the military. I don't want such a brainwashing "game" in my home either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linking terms
"5. You agree to protect and use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the good name and reputation of ESRB.
6. ESRB reserves the right to request the removal of any link to the ESRB Site for any reason and at any time. If ESRB chooses to exercise such right, you agree to immediately cease the use of any link to the ESRB Site."
I think not.
This is one of the worst terms of service I've ever seen. A disclaimer of all liability on their part. An indemnification agreement. An arbitration agreement. The right for them to modify the agreement at any time (oops - they probably just invalidated the whole thing be including that, if it wasn't already invalid.) They're actually so brazen as to literally state that everything needs to be interpreted in their favor: "Should a provision of this Agreement require interpretation, it is agreed that the court, arbitrator, agency, individual or entity interpreting this Agreement shall not more strictly construe the terms herein against the ESRB."
Anyway, here's the link I have every right to use without agreeing to "terms" for using it:
http://www.esrb.org/about/termsofuse.jsp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More from the ESRB
"Publishers of packaged or boxed games carrying an ESRB rating are contractually bound to follow the industry-adopted Principles and Guidelines for Responsible Advertising Practices, along with numerous additional requirements addressing how rating information must be displayed on game packaging and in advertising and certain restrictions on where ads for Mature-rated games may appear. The ESRB's Advertising Review Council (ARC) diligently monitors industry compliance, and in the event that a game publisher is found to have inappropriately labeled or advertised a product, the ESRB is empowered to compel corrective actions and impose a wide range of sanctions, including monetary fines."
Do you see what the problem is? In order to get an ESRB rating, they need to agree to "terms". If this bill becomes law, then either:
1) The ESRB will have the power to impose these terms - or whatever terms they like - on every video game producer in the country. This bill states that a game MUST get an ESRB rating, but does NOT state that the ESRB must rate a game. Frankly, Congress does not have the power to force the ESRB, a nonprofit nongovernmental entity, to do their bidding and rate every single game in existence. So, if the ESRB doesn't like you, you're just out of luck. Or the ESRB could shut its doors, and suddenly all new video games are illegal.
2) If I'm somehow wrong about the ESRB being able to impose its terms, then it follows that the ESRB will be forced to abandon these terms, weakening what they already have in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More from the ESRB
I reached out to the local Occupy people and didn't hear back concerning an interest in organizing for his prosecutor to be investigated. I got no response as yet. Now your post makes me think even this law could use some protest.
I just really want to organize and am clueless how to start or where.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Influence of video games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Influence of video games
But ROFL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GI - Gets It
FR - Front Runner
CA - Corrupt Asshole
FM - Fucking Moron
So now we would have:
Jim Matheson - D-Utah (FR)
Jim Leahy - I-Vermont (CA)
What other ratings could there be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I had something slightly different in mind, but then there would be two 'FR' ratings...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem is, bad parents in broken families that these mentally unstable children come from before shooting at a school, tend to not give a shit and will buy the 18+ game for their child. Just to make them shut up.
So then video games will continue to be blamed anyway. And now we've wasted money monitoring something which was being done anyway without government oversight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right thing for the wrong reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly
The reason it won't work is that, even as any single part of the culture is going to be hard to correlate with individual behavior, it is also impossible to ignore that cultural values impact behavior. Even if you are, like me, one who argues that poverty is correlated with violence, and that human rights and just distribution of the means to sustain one's self would ameliorate much of the violence in any society, you are nevertheless left then with one irrefutable fact.
You are arguing that society's values are motivating certain members of society to behave in specific ways.
Human behavior is complex even when taken one by one. Trying to scientifically analyze all of culture in order to control everyone is almost hopeless.
I have played probably all of the most disgusting video games and watched some of the most vile entertainment there is. Happily, to date, I have not participated in any of the anti social behaviors depicted. Even when watching something that depicts gross immorality as something appealing, rather than using it as a way to tag a specific character as a bad person, I still don't go out and do things that I am aware are wrong. I tend even to avoid doing things OTHER people think are wrong, unless of course I think THEY are wrong to think so.
So sure. Video games don't cause the violence. But people do nevertheless get tired of entertainment that seems to just sort of gratuitously go against the expectations of society. It is a constant drain on the energy of many people to have to deal with it day by day, protect their kids from it, be exposed to it.
Nothing is ever going to make them stop trying to make it go away. Simultaneously, nothing is ever going to stop other people, who rather enjoy all of this stuff, from telling them no.
You may as well get used to it. Society is always going to have its little expectations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
violence anywhere, is failure everywhere
Now we have mass gun killings, now of innocent helpless children, and the gun lobby is all OH NO DONT TAKE MY GUN, and using innocent children ( the presidents this time) to help make their disgusting points.
The NRA is a heartless, god less and completely ignorant institution, and is not completely irrelevant to ALL such discussions.
They have shown themslves to be not only COWARDS, but totally irrelevant to any such future discussions to gun policy in this country.
It's really a shame when such cowards are given ANY type of voice, and now that they have shown themselves to be the cowards they really are, they will indeed fall into the pits of irrelevance where they belong.
We all know that sometimes having a gun is protection, and sometimes people want them, and I don't blame them for it especially in todays world. Do we really need assault weapons to help us stay safe ?
If everyone in the world had such weapons, this no one would be safe, no matter who you are. I think people are forgetting that.
That is why we have police, and the government, who are capable of standing up to thugs and killers.
At some point we must trust law enforcement to carry out its sworn duties,and serve and protect. Most of us know someone who is a sworn officer of protection, and most of us also know them to be decent law abiding enforcers , trying to help protect us from thugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: violence anywhere, is failure everywhere
You make the call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can do that on my own. I don't need someone else to do it for me. That is for COWARDS or people who live next door to a police station and are lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who would prefer police deal with crime rather than handling it themselves is a coward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
P.S. My guns, 99.99% of the time, are a three hour drive from here(my home), but not everyone has that luxury.
P.P.S. Where my guns are, when seconds count, the police are only an hour away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about a background check to buy a video game?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]