A Closer Look at the Parallels Between US v. Stevens and EMA v. Schwarzenegger
This article is to supplement GP’s coverage of US v. Stevens and its implications for the game industry (also addressed on GamesLaw). I will elaborate on why the Supreme Court refuses to analogize depictions of the unlawful killing, maiming, wounding, etc. of animals to child pornography and why it probably will not liken video game violence to it either in the pending case EMA v. Schwarzenegger. Also, the somewhat less-discussed basis for the Stevens decision: overbreadth of the statute and why the EMA law will also likely be found overbroad and stricken.
MAGfest 8
So we’ve survived yet another set of panels, this time at MAGFest 8, which was an utter blast. Destructoid has a rundown on what you missed if you didn’t go, but let’s face it, you all know that I’m the only important thing on that list, right?
Right?
Looking forward, we’ll be expecting to hear a final confirmation on the third iteration of “Legal Issues in Gaming” at PAX (East) some time in the next couple of weeks, and we’ll get that information out to you as soon as it comes in and we finalize the panel attendees.
Hasbro sues Atari over D & D IP
It almost rhymes, doesn’t it? Just before Christmas, Hasbro sued Atari over the licensing rights for video games based on the Dungeons and Dragons IP (owned by Wizards of the Coast, a Hasbro subsidiary). According to Wizards, they’ve been negotiating with Hasbro for months to no avail. Hasbro filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Rhode Island district, prompting this response from Atari:
“Hasbro has resorted to these meritless allegations, in an apparent attempt to unfairly take back rights granted to Atari [...] Atari has sought to resolve the matter without cooperation from Hasbro. We regret that our longtime partner has decided to pursue this action.”
Atari denies the allegations (though to date they have not filed a response or a MTD on the …
Atkinson: “You don’t need to play this game”
Michael Atkinson, the rabidly anti-gaming Attorney General for South Australia, completely crossed the line into outright censorship in defending his decision to refuse ratings classification to Aliens vs. Predator, essentially banning the game. While the AG has long been the sole obstacle towards Australia gaining an 18+ mature game rating, he has always couched his arguments in that tired trope, think of the children.
Until now. Atkinson now believes that he should be the sole arbiter of what games you get to play on purely moral grounds. He recently proclaimed “You don’t need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people.”
Atkinson’s hypocrisy really knows no bounds. On the one hand, he says “This is a question of a small number of …
Desert Bus for Hope/Childs Play Charity
In case you haven’t heard by now, the annual Desert Bus for Hope event for the Child’s Play charity (run by the good folks at Penny Arcade) is in full swing. We’ve made our annual donation, and I encourage you to do so as well. Last year Desert Bus raised over $70,000 for Children’s Hospitals, and already this year they are at $85,000+ after 4 days and 14 hours of constant playing of Desert Bus — the most boring game of all time. The cool thing about Desert Bus is that it is interactive; they have a live videocast as well as .gifs of donation levels on the main site; last year they gave us a nice shoutout after our donation. It’s a …
Abington May Sue Over Xbox Live Bannings
Joystiq reports that IP boutique Abington is considering a class action on behalf of Xbox Live subscribers banned recently from the service for using modded consoles. The firm alleges that the bans came as a money grabbing move timed after players would have purchased Halo 3:ODST and would have pre-ordered Modern Warfare 2. Mark Methenitis, over at Joystiq’s Law of the Game blog, astutely points out that this is probably a cash grab, but notes that there is a chance that there might be a kernel of legitimacy in the claim. Let’s mark this one up in the “probably not going anywhere” category.
WoW Shut Down in China?
GamePolitics reported earlier this month on the battle between China’s Ministry of Culture and their General Administration of Press and Publication over control of the online game industry. According to reports, the GAPP has banned Chinese WoW operator NetEase from running The Burning Crusade in China, and is requiring that they stop taking new subscriptions and cease current subscription fees. Most previous regulation, including censorship, of the industry has recently come from the Ministry of Culture, and this appears to be a major turf war between the two organizations. The Ministry of Culture has approved WoW in China, launched this September, while the GAPP did not. For their part, NetEase has issued a press release stating that they believe they are in …
California Court Awards $16 Million in Damages for Fatal Wii Prank
Thanks to Kotaku for the heads up. The Sacramento County Superior Court just awarded $16 million in damages to the family of Jennifer Strange, who died from “water intoxication” (presumably complicated by hyponatremia). Strange died back in 2007 after a radio contest from KDND-FM in which she had to chug bottles of water in order to win a Nintendo Wii. The jury found that the radio station negligently ignored warnings, including during the contest, that there could be potentially fatal contests. From the radio station’s response, it sounds like they’re not going to appeal the verdict.
“Jennifer Strange’s death was a tragedy. Our hearts go out to all of her loved ones, including, in particular, her husband and children. While …
Pending Supreme Court Case US v. Stevens Has Implications for the Game Industry
Most attempts by state legislatures to censor the game industry involve statutes which prohibit the distribution of ”violent video games” to minors. However, these statutes have invariably been stricken down by federal courts because they sought to restrict distribution of games, the contents of which fell into a category of speech (violence) that is protected under the First Amendment and the respective states could not show the requisite danger of imminent lawless action that the First Amendment requires in order to restrict speech that is protected(1). Very recently in VSDA v. Schwarzenegger, the Ninth Circuit struck down one such statute for that reason(2). Through this and other examples, we see that courts are loathe to create new categories of unprotected speech, or to expand the categories that are already unprotected(3). On October 6th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in US v. Stevens, which challenges the Constitutional validity of a federal statute that prohibits the creation, sale, and possession of depictions animal cruelty. Due to the insight into the new Court roster’s attitudes on First Amendment issues that Stevens will offer, we are watching closely. Hit the jump for an in-depth analysis.
