Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees

Posted by kdawson on Mon Jun 30, 2008 06:27 PM
from the don't-let-the-door-hit-you dept.
Government The Courts Entertainment Games News
I Said More Ham writes "Minnesota's attorney general will drop the state's efforts to fine underage buyers of violent videogames after a high court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. The Entertainment Software Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, announced Monday that the state paid $65,000 in attorney's fees and expenses."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: State pays video game industry $65,000 in fees by I Said More Ham (1315787)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Minnesota Pays Video Game Industry $65K In Fees 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2008, @06:35PM (#24009277)

      Uh, why do movies have ratings?

      • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Vectronic (1221470) on Monday June 30 2008, @06:38PM (#24009317)

        ooh ooh...my turn...

        Why does food have listed ingredients?

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by kitsunewarlock (971818) on Monday June 30 2008, @08:35PM (#24010439) Journal
          Because allergins can lead to severe medical problems?

          • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jmac1492 (1036880) on Monday June 30 2008, @09:29PM (#24010827)
            Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
            I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by KGIII (973947) on Monday June 30 2008, @10:07PM (#24011131) Homepage Journal
              Holding parents responsible? Pfft! We can't do THAT now can we?

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by xalorous (883991) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @01:35AM (#24012467) Journal

              Which is exactly the point. Ultimately parents are responsible for their children, and they should be held accountable.

            • Then sell them alcohol.

              before you know it the analogy police is going to get you!

            • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Lunarsight (1053230) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @05:22AM (#24013537) Homepage

              Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.
              I can just hear you asking, "But wait! Kids don't realize that their allergens are bad for them. We currently handle selling video games EXACTLY how we handle selling milk: Making the kids PARENTS responsible for preventing them from getting their hands on things that their parents think are bad for them.

              Therein lies the problem - there are a lot of 'not responsible' parents out there.

              I play Grand Theft Auto IV online via X-Box Live, and a lot of the people playing sound WAY too young to be playing it.

              Ironically enough, it's often the high-pitched ones that sound like they're barely out of grade school that are the biggest troublemakers. Some of them cuss more foully than the adults do! (It's not to say the adults won't shoot you dead, but they're typically more polite about it.)

              If a parent thinks their kid is mature enough to handle a game like this, then I'm okay with them buying it on their behalf. But I'll level with you - I don't think many parents know their kids half as well as they think they do, and some don't even make the effort to 'know' them at all.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Von Helmet (727753)

              Of course they can. But it's not illegal to sell someone milk, even if they are lactose intolerant. It's the person's responsibility to know they can't handle milk.

              I'm going to be slightly pedantic and point out that a food intolerance is very different to a food allergy. Food intolerances typically just cause you a lot of paid, food allergies can kill you. Lactose intolerance generally just gives you a sore stomach or maybe the runs. A full blown milk allergy would be the sort of thing that could kill yo

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Informative)

          by m0rph3us0 (549631) on Monday June 30 2008, @06:41PM (#24009363)
          This is false. It is not illegal, it contravenes the contract the most movie theaters have in place with the distributor.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by LoganDzwon (1170459)
            +1 I was just trying how to write his properly. Also, the age of consent is 17 in the movie world.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by KGIII (973947)
                  Sex is well defined so I'm gonna call you an idiot. Please don't be offended. Really you're just ignorant and, for that, I don't blame you. "Digital penetration" is one such example where coitus did not occur but is still a violation of various laws. For instance, to take what you said, "Well, she was 4 and we "didn't have sex" so it isn't illegal." (Sorry to pick on you and I'm pretty sure you're probably not a child molester but good luck telling the folks after they've read your last post.)

          • Most people don't realize this, but the whole movie rating system is contractual in nature.

            Though the cynics like me will point out that it was done to AVOID stuff like this where the government tries to make it mandatory. Laws and court battles are expensive. Criminal charges are outright crazy, but look at alcohol laws - they didn't want a situation where allowing a minor to see an R rated movie would be a felony.

            So they regulate themselves a bit. Besides which, I think that most stores do the same thi

            • Re:Correct... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Tuesday July 01 2008, @12:36AM (#24012153)

              And do you know what solves the horror movie stuff?

              Going hunting for deer.

              When you put either buckshot or a razer-tipped arrow down its gut and watch it writhe in pain before its last breath, you know what terror and horror is... And you were the one that caused it. Chainsaws and fingernail freddy dont scare me. To me, they're boring. Instead, when you shoot arrows or bullets, or catch and skin a fish, you know what life is and how to snuff it out.

              I did it when I was 12. I killed animals 3x the size of myself. And watching a deer writhe in pain before you take your pistol (you ALWAYS carry a pistol, even if you have a rifle) and shoot it in the head just does something... Either you like it or abhor it. I could do it if that meant eating or not, but I choose not to.

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 30 2008, @08:11PM (#24010233)

          So the only thing ratings do is allow parents to determine whether a film is suitable for their kids?

          Sounds good, let's keep it that way.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maglor_83 (856254) on Monday June 30 2008, @06:37PM (#24009305)

      So that parents can have some idea of the content in the games they buy their children. And stores can implement policies preventing the sale of violent games to minors independent of the government.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        Wouldn't it be just as easy for the parents to do a little research on the game to figure out of it was right for their kids? OK, it probably wouldn't be just as easy, but the parents could make a much better judgement call if they downloaded the demo, or just went to a few review sites to see what the game was like. Instead of trusting the ratings blindly.

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Thugthrasher (935401) on Monday June 30 2008, @08:08PM (#24010211)
          That would be a best case scenario. But if you are a parent, and you have 3 children all aged of 12-18 (mine did at one point about 15 years ago, not the mention the 10 year old they had at that point) and the children are all interested in different things, it becomes a nightmare to try to keep track of every individual thing they want. Now, if one of the children is interested in video games, the parent should probably try to keep some handle on what the more popular games out there are, so they can easily make calls if the kid asks "Can I have this game?" However, if kid suddenly asks for "Obscure Game X" the parent might not be able to make an easy call while at the store...it's quite convenient if there are ratings in that situation. If the game is rated "E for everyone" or "T for teen" then the parent should be safe assuming it is an acceptable game for their 15 year old child. However, if the game is rated "M for mature," the parent can THEN say "Well, not right now, let me look into it a bit and I'll decide for you." Again, these are close to ideal parents in this case, but just an example of how ratings are useful, even if there isn't a law governing how games are sold based on ratings.
        • No, it wouldn't be just as easy, or even come close to working. Shopping often involves looking at what a store has BEFORE you make a decision. Your method would require the parent to download demos of EVERY game ever produced, so that when they showed up at the store, the parent would already know what each and every game on the shelf is like. This doesn't even bring in the issue of consoles, which would require the parent to go out and rent every single game released so that they would be prepared when

        • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 30 2008, @08:24PM (#24010327)

          It ain't that easy.

          Do you remember the Quake ad? Unfortunately I can't find that picture online, but it depicted one of those "ideal families", mommy, daddy, two kids, gathered around the computer, all smiling, the only thing that was missing was some sort of halo around them to make it a poster for some religious group.

          Now imagine someone buying Quake based on that ad.

          But even aside of ads, it isn't easy to find real information about a game online. If anything, you get opinions, praise and slander alike, but really little info what it's about. You also can't say that you go by producer, there is no studio that produces "only" a certain kind of games. Playing it yourself may also yield no sensible information within a few hours, or at least can't rule out that sooner or later you run into something you don't want your kids to see.

          Not to mention that there are few parents who actually play well enough to get far...

          So I do see ratings as a good thing to give parents guidelines. What's important, though, is to also note why a game got a certain rating. Why has a game a certain rating? Violence? Sex? Drug use? Language? I think I'm not alone when I say that a PG13 (language) is not the same for me as a PG13 (violence). I laugh at the former, you hear worse on the average schoolyard. I would at least take a look at the latter.

          But what stands is that the final arbiter when it comes to what a kid can or can't see is the parents. No state, no government, no "opinion group", no lobbyist, no organisation, no company.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by xstonedogx (814876)

          The ratings are a very convenient first step. If it is rated M, I know it is not okay for my daughter; no need to look into it. If it is rated E, I know it is probably okay. I'll still look into it, but being able to "eyeball" and rule out an entire class of games makes life easier. On top of that, once the games are home, it's easier to set clear boundaries. My kid knows that any games rated E that I've allowed in our house are fair game, but that games rated M or whatever are daddy's games.

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by m0rph3us0 (549631) on Monday June 30 2008, @06:39PM (#24009335)

      To provide the customer an objective analysis of things they or the party they are purchasing for may find offensive in the game before purchasing the game in an effort to reduce returns or unsatisfactory feelings arising from the purchase.

      • Yeah, I agree. I bought this Barney game and only fond out after buying it that you can't blow off that freak's head. If it had a rating, telling me it is suitable for kids, I could have avoided it!

      • an objective analysis would be putting the game up for download with a survey.

        The process for rating games is like that for rating movies.. old curmudgeons get together in a room, and if they see any red pixels it's given an M rating.

        They gave PSOGC a teen rating because of "blood". You ran up, killed a monster, and as it died it melted into the floor leaving a very synthetic neon pink "splat" on the ground which looked like nickelodeon's "gak".

    • So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place?

      Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Presumably the repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games is that they're punished when their parents find out. Voluntary ratings systems ostensibly exist to inform the consumer about content, not to restrict it. Methods of enforcement are left up to the end users.

      • What if a 14 year old buys himself an M rated game for the DS? A kid could easily hide a DS game and never have his parents find out about it. Also, while only playing while outside the house, it would be pretty difficult for his parents to catch him playing.

        • Time to tell your kid about the birds and the bees, or do you want some hentai game to do the job for you? I mean, he could start wondering why his doodle ain't vanishing when it gets hard.

          How about a completely radical and novel idea, like... I dunno, preparing kids for the real life instead of trying to shelter them from it?

    • Re:So what's the point of having ratings? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Adambomb (118938) on Monday June 30 2008, @06:40PM (#24009351) Journal

      So, what's the point of having those ratings in the first place? Aside from letting people know if a game is gruesome or not, there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Well, highlighted IS the reason for the rating system. Although the "people" in question are supposed to be the parents who are supposed to,you know , be parenting their children.

      If children are buying these games without parental supervision, then they are already being trusted by their parents to have enough assets available to them to be able to do so. If their children are able to obtain the funds without their parents knowing, then they should be able to realize this when unknown 40$ games appear around the house.

      Busy or not, theres correlatable signs to be able to track your childrens actions. And as a parent, no cry of correlation isnt causation will fly as you don't need a warrant to check their room.

      Do apologize if you're wrong though.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shadylookin (1209874)
      To give parents who don't have time to play video games a general idea of the type of content in them so they can make a somewhat informed decision about whether they want their children to play the game. If nothing else it certainly wasn't made so the government could fine children $25 unconstitutionally.

    • The same reason insulation must display a resistivity value: so the customer knows what the hell they're buying. It might not be illegal to sell mature games to young kids, but it's illegal to put a teen rating on those games (or it should be!).

    • ...there's no real repercussions of young kids getting a hold of 'mature' games.

      Just because there are no legal repercussions, doesn't mean there are no repercussions. Likewise, if your kids watch an X rated movie, the police don't bust them, but you might ground them. It's the job of the parents to raise kids, not the police.

  • Oh Boy now I'm a babysitter! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2008, @06:47PM (#24009431)

    What about my right to play M-rated games online without prepubescent rants about how my mother is a slut who sleeps with any guy who can pwn her n00b of a son who can't even sploit his way to the 1337 sn1p3r spots? Or listen to little Billy discuss how he discovered the joys of masturbation!

    Thanks Minnesota attorney general. You really saved the day, you jackass.

  • Your tax money at work! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 30 2008, @07:08PM (#24009675)

    Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

    Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

    Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

    • Realize where that money comes from they're now paying, and what it was being used for in the first place.

      Such things affect everyone, no matter how much he doesn't care about games. Or whatever other trivial matter that should be handled by people individually is being made a public issue.

      Nannystates aren't just interfering with your privacy and free decision, they also cost a ton of money that could be spent better.

      Actually, the money was spent very efficiently. It gave Pawlenty national exposure as the good guy fighting evil and protecting the children. And at a very convenient time, just when McCain sewed up the nomination and it became obvious that he might need a more straight party line guy as his VP.

        • What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.

          And how would a politician know "where it's put best to help the economy recover"?
          Even if he/she was a good honest person with no special interests pushing him/her in one direction, how would that person have all the necessary information to make a wise decision?
          Look at the mess they made with ethanol.

  • Interesting to see other plaintiffs here: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday June 30 2008, @07:15PM (#24009733)
    Considering that the "Entertainment Software Association" was listed as one plaintiff, it seems that this case was not levied in reality against the "buyers" but against the "sellers" of the software. Well, not actually even the sellers, but people associated with the selling and manufacture.

    I am just a silly Slashie, but it seems to be like trying to sue the Motion Picture Association of America [mpaa.org] for when some kids sneak into cinema to watch an M rated movie if they are a few months shy of the age limit. Maybe sue Paramount because some teenage girls ducked in and saw Johnny Depp in Pirates III?

    *slap forehead*

  • What's needed is a law to lock up the parents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Monday June 30 2008, @07:29PM (#24009863) Homepage

    Why not lock up the parents who allow their offspring to possess "mature" material.

    Enforcement of parenting skills would go a lot further than trying to ban everything in sight.

    I wonder if the religious do-gooders who started this suit will have to foot the bill personally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spydabyte (1032538)
      What kind of law is that? One of morale judgment? I'm not going to get started into laws, but the parents are not doing anything illegal. They're making the decision we, the United States, have decided to give them once they have lived for 18 years. We've stated that once you've been alive for 18 years then you are physically and mentally mature enough to understand the situation you make your conscious decision in.

      Whether or not that's correct or not is a whole other ball game.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)

      Who the heck are you to tell me how to raise my kids and what I may or may not show them?

  • Does this mean minors can now buy porno, too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BobMcD (601576) on Monday June 30 2008, @07:57PM (#24010119)

    I mean, there's no provable, causal link between violence and porno either. AND porno has been found, time and time again, to BE protected.

    There's something schizophrenic going on here...

    • Sure it is. For some odd reason it's more acceptable to show how people hurt each other than to show how people pleasure each other.

      Don't ask me why. But take the average PG13 action movie, with gunfights, people "dying", explosions... if you showed the same detail in sex, the movie would get an M. If it wasn't outlawed for too extreme display of weird sexual practices in the first place.

  • Every time videogame rating laws come up people ask why they shouldn't be legally enforced the way film ratings are. This is an incorrect assumption.

    In the USA films are rated by the MPAA which is a trade association of the film industry, not a government agency. The film ratings are enforced by the MPAA themselves not by law. States or the federal government do not enforce the ratings. There is no state or national law preventing the sale of R-rated films to minors.

    This is the same situation as videogame ratings. The games are rated by the industry and enforced by the industry.

  • Money well spent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ghostalker474 (1022885) <Ghostalker.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 01 2008, @03:38AM (#24013103)
    I'm sure the residents of Minnesota are thrilled where their tax dollars are going.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dbmasters (796248)
      yes, we are indeed very pleased with out gov't in the last year voting for tax hikes for pet projects, voting themselves a 62% raise in "daily spending allowance" (they now get about $100 a day for lunch and parking expenses) and now they take kids to court and fine them for buying violent games... Yep, we Minnesotans are popping buttons with pride.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.