Zagzag said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but what I have heard would imply that this American "Free speech amendment to the constitution thingy" would only serve to make it illegal to sell games to people who are younger than the rating allows.
Here's the tricky part. In order to make a
law that the games can't be sold based on their content, the games are no longer protected by our free speech amendment. According to our Constitution, for something that is protected speech there can be no laws made to restrict its sale. Therefore, in order for the law to stand it has to also be decided that video games are not protected as free speech. That has ramifications.
If games are no longer considered free speech, there will be absolutely nothing preventing
other laws that do far worse than require ID to buy mature games. It would take one Columbine to get a bunch of shooters banned from sale. Or one 9/11 to get flight simulators banned. The free speech right exists to protect the people from the tyranny of the majority [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority], and as a part of the "gaming minority" it's something we need to be really concerned about. Otherwise our hobby gets crushed and relegated to being a children's toy.
This is the thing though - the law itself is meaningless "protect the children" pandering. Game retailers
already refuse to sell M-rated games to minors without an adult present at a far higher rate than R-rated movies or Explicit-rated CDs. The problem isn't with what the specific law is trying to do, because we already have that. The problem is what the law will cause in order to exist.
Verlander said:
Out of interest (I fully support the sentiment), if video games start getting banned etc in America, does that not mean the industry will just move elsewhere, such as Europe, and produce them there? And like, Americans could only get them on illegal import?
The US is the largest game market on the planet, and any laws that change the types and content of games that can be sold here will dramatically change the games the rest of the world will see. Even European companies target the content of their games towards what can sell in the US. Game companies can't afford to ignore this market for major releases - unlike other restrictive countries, like Germany - instead, they'll change the games they make to be able to sell everywhere.
rembrandtqeinstein said:
Not to crap in anyone's danish but the bankroll behind the VGVN is the ESA which is the lobbying arm of the game publishers.
The ESA is a lobbying organization, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. It's to the advantage of gamers, developers,
and publishers that games remain protected under the 1st Amendment.
RowdyRodimus said:
Damn, you hit it out of the park with this. Here's a paragraph that basically tells kids it's ok to use others work in school without permission, but nowhere else.
That didn't make sense, so I looked it up. You're taking the quote out of context. What that text is saying is that using other peoples content as a part of your schoolwork can be counted as plagiarism, and that there can be serious academic consequences for it. Then it goes on to say that outside of schoolwork, fair use
allows much more open uses of other people's content. But just because something is fair use doesn't mean it's not plagiarism - it can be both. You got the message backwards. It's actually a decent explanation of fair use rights.
Of course, the whole thing is set up as an anti-piracy advocate site, which is kind of understandable from their point of view. That doesn't change the relevancy of wanting games to be protected as free speech though.
EvilYoshi said:
It's futile Yahtzee, our demographic is the least likely to get off our asses to go vote on something. The old gits, on the other hand, are the most likely to vote (they have nothing better to do anyways).
That's why it's even more important.