April 9, 2007 -
The Video Game Decency Act, currently working its way through Congress, has garnered some recent media coverage, including comments by its sponsor, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI).The Niles Star (Niles, Michigan) reports on the bill, HR1531, which, among other provisions, would prohibit game publishers from withholding content information from the ESRB. Upton's bill, of course, stems from the 2005 Hot Coffee scandal.
Unfortunately, the Star's coverage reads like an Upton press release, which it is. Shoddy journalism aside, here's what Rep. Upton had to say about his bill:
As a parent of two teenagers, I know that parental involvement is the first and most important line of defense in determining the type of content suitable for kids, and the ratings system empowers parents to do just that. This legislation will restore parents' trust in a system in which game makers had intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids. Parents across the country will be able to breathe a sigh of relief as this legislation goes hand in hand with the mission of the industry's own ratings system.
Upton goes on to say that HR1531 was "written under the strict guidelines of the Constitution." He also calls it:
...a simple, surgical approach to provide new regulatory authority for the FTC to punish manufacturers in the video game industry when they intentionally hide indecent, violent or otherwise age-inappropriate content in order to bypass the ratings system.
It is unfortunate that a few bad players have tarnished the integrity of the ratings system. The Federal Trade Commission currently does not have the tools necessary to pursue game makers who maliciously deceive consumers - this legislation will change that, and parents will be able to have faith in the ratings system once again.
Upton's bill also picked up some TV news coverage on South Bend, Indiana's WNDU-16.
Comments
Using lawmaking power as a means of applying political pressure is a tactic as old as politics itself and used properly it can be an effective tool, that a bill does little more then send a message is not grounds enough to discredit as merit less, sending a message is often all that needs to be done. To that extent I can tolerate I certain degree of frivolous and useless legislation I’ll even go as far as to say a certain degree of practically useless “message legislation” is not only acceptable but actually beneficial, Don’t misinterpret this however the amount of legislation spent on this controversy if far past the point of tolerance is far past the point of tolerance, but may overall point remains the same a small amount of message legislation (within reasonable limits of course) can and in my opinion should be tolerated.
merely making a point that fining mistakes that already get fined is foolish and missing the point.
Upton is not totally out of touch with the way things are. He shows it with
"I know that parental involvement is the first and most important line of defense in determining the type of content suitable for kids".
Isnt this all of us here are saying over again? That the parents should responsibly check what their child are playing.
@Picho
Don't throw all the politicians are anti-videogames activists in the same basket. Did Upton say the rating system was too confusing to understand? I wouldn't want to be seen like every other gamers out there (remeber that "overzealous" one?).
@ZippyDSMlee
The PTC can't "go" against anyone, they're not a law organization. The FTC can't go after unrated dvds. Whats the deceptive trade practice in an unrated dvd? They could go after Saw III if the company only showed images that made the movie pass as rated PG-13.
woah! wait a min! I thought the system was too confusing for the parents to understand in the first place. So what trust are restoring in a system that is said to be so hard that parents cannot understand it? (and therfor do not use)
Some of us don't really understand the wording thats in these kinda bills. IN some cases, I.E. Jacks stuff, it's so crazy it's not worth reading. In this case, i had read it, but don't understand the legality of it or how it's supposed to have any impact. Thats why I was asking.
While I respect your right to an opinion, I would recomend you not be a walking example of "John Gabriels greater internet Fuckwad" theory. Ok?
Be that as it may, most of the stuff in this bills seems like moralistic posturing with little to no actual effect and little hope to be enforced.
But thats just how I view it.
No it is not this bill does nothing to regulate obscenity or any other form of content therefore invoking Miller is not a relevant point of reference. Hot Coffee however can be considered pornographic under subjective definitions (including the ESRB rating system), I don’t not agree with that assessment but it is valid. The law punishes publishers for lying in order to alter a from of subjective assessment, what the esrb considers which in theory should be what the majority of the American people consider to be pornographic, if a publisher gets brought in front of the FTC under this law it will be for hiding of content to influence the subjective non-legal definitions of the ESRB. Within the context of the bill it is very much subjective definitions that are the relevant point of reference.
On that note I also find little wrong with Upton’s use of “deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids”. Hot Coffee itself may have only had sex, but the allegation and unlikely but possible future act is that hiding was done to prevent a higher rating. A lower rating would result in children having greater accesses to all of the questionable things influencing the games finial rating; increased exposure to both sex and violence would occur regardless of which was hidden to get the lower rating. Notice he said “intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver” not necessarily hide. Whether or not the ESRB was actually deceived is a different story the answer to which is no, however T2 handling of the situation was at best poor and at worse deceptive and the FTC did find enough to give T2 a slap on the wrist and stern warning, so while factually inaccurate the general sentiment of T2 having deceived the public is not entirely unwarranted.
“I will let #1 stand by itself and watch you attempt to debunk that.”
Don’t have too I already said in my initial post this at best only makes it 100%clear that deceiving the ESRB is an unfair trade practice Needless? Yes. Redundant? Yes unconstitutional? No. Think about it this way the game industry has had no problem with letting laws against games using only the existing Miller definition pass these are nothing more then redundancies of existing obscenity laws.
“2) A moralist POS scrap of paper.”
Won’t disagree with you there but when talking about politics a politicians using misleading language is the status que. Expecting them not to is naive. Upton unlike other legislators however has actually found a constitutional way to do it, and for that I can respect him.
“If you want to make thoughtful responses then leave out the insults.”
Most of those examples are mirroring of the language the same posters used to describe the politicians in question, but you are right going down to there level is not the right course of action. Interesting how we tolerate that language towards others but feel we are somehow above being the target of that language ourselves.
I disagree about point out the short length of the document being less then polite. I can understand not read a 40 page JT diatribe but in this case it really is easier in my opinion to read it then wait for someone to summarize it for you.
The government should invent a new branch. It will be called the Department of Righteous Ass Whupping. If anybody tries to pass legislation without first actually RESEARCHING and FORMING AN INTELLIGENT ANALYSIS on an issue, it would be the job of the DRASW to beat that person until common sense works its way into their brain. Then we wouldn't have to bother with crap like this.
"Boop, boop boop!"
To that end, I wonder if it'll even be challanged should it pass. It probably will, but if it's really as weak as it seems, then it's perhaps redundant. The previous bill had much more teeth, but was also flawed and completely unpassable.
So what purpose does this bill serve other then being a cheap grab for votes?
No their referring to the Southpark movie mainly, where Kyle's mom basically starts a war against Canada, because she doesn't like 2 comedians.
Did anyone else think of a certain John Stewart quote when they read this?
"And as I sit there, watching them play these games, I can't help but wonder where the system has failed.
Are you two referring to The Simpsons instead of South Park? The episode where Reverend Lovejoy's wife keeps yelling, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!??"
Whoops, you're right. I'm Canadian, you see. I suppose I should have said:
Discrimination based on race or gender = bad. Discrimination based on sexual orientation = undecided. Discrimination based on hobbies and religion (or the lack thereof) = good.
Better?
Exactly, she's screaming "For the children" and ignoring her whelp trying to get her attention. Lawmakers are ranting "For the children" and ignoring anything that might actually help the children like improving education, reducing crime, building the economy, and creating a strong, effective foreign policy.
Namely the stupid crusades that are "for the children".
I guess some parents lose all logical thought once they become parents.
Isn't there a large slice of the American public that publicly believes discrimintaion based on sexual orientation is not only OK but is necessary to "save" America? Last time I checked these people were having a major impact on legislation in this country. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don't.
I love his opening, he makes it sound like he is intelligent and actually knows what he's talking about, unlike some folks in office... However, everything hereafter blows my perspective of him away.
'This legislation will restore parents’ trust in a system in which game makers had intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids.'
Umm, most of the parents I know never lost faith in the ratings system. Largely because they took the time to read that Hot Coffee(GTASA), Topless Mod(Oblivion), etc. was content that the developers/creators never wanted to be seen in the finished product, however through simple modifications to the games the features were discovered. Not the companies fault!
'Parents across the country will be able to breathe a sigh of relief as this legislation goes hand in hand with the mission of the industry’s own ratings system.'
More like Parents across the country will be able to breathe a sigh of relief as this legislation takes one more responsibility off you and puts it somewhere it doesn't belong.
Prolly cause they just use the excuse "i have a job i dont have time"
The REAL act is HR6120.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce any video game that contains a rating label containing an age-based content rating for that video game where the person, with the intent of obtaining a less restrictive age-based content rating, failed to disclose content of the video game that was required to be disclosed to the independent ratings organization that assigned such age-based content rating, and which resulted in the video game receiving a less-restrictive age-based content rating than otherwise would have resulted. "
Its illegal to hide content in order to get a lower rating.
A violation of section 2 shall be treated as an unfair or deceptive act or practice affecting commerce within the meaning proscribed in section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), and shall be treated by the Commission as a violation of a rule under section 18(a) of such Act.
If you do hide content, you will be opened to prosecution by the FTC for deceptive trading practices.
That is all the important wording in this law.
Is it illegal?
Not really, its just redifining what you call it by legal definition. Now that such practices fall under the FTC, they can prosecute over it.
So for 1 and 2
It essentially gives the FTC all the responsibility and oversight to the FTC (although the ESRB won't go away, surely, as the FTC would have to form a new group inside of itself to play videogames and whatnot all the way through).
3.
The legality of this bill is pretty solid, the only thing you could get on about this is if its downloaded via the internet.
If you want to make thoughtful responses then leave out the insults. all you're doing is making people angry at you. when you say sh@$ like
"I love how your blatantly reading in what you want to see" or "it takes longer to type the post you made asking about it then to read it, but any way" or "Yes that would be you"
after someone (probably the person who wrote what you're responding to) read that line, anything after it seems pretty empty. you did make good points, but the way you went about telling them was anything but polite.
"Yes that would be you (and probably him as well as well but I’m focusing on you) pornography is ultimately a subjective personal definition and even the dictionary definition includes lurid and sensational material as an expectable use of the word. The miller test deals with obscenity a much more narrowly defined concept then pornography. The two terms are NOT interchangeable"
We aren't talking about a dictionary definition, nor are we talking about subjective views, doofus. We are talking about a lawmaker and a specific bill that will passed into law. Therefore, when discussing pornography, from a legal standpoint, the only relevant point of refrence is the Miller Test.
This bill is 2 things:
1) Gives the FTC powers it already has.
2) A moralist POS scrap of paper.
I will let #1 stand by itself and watch you attempt to debunk that. As to #2, the very fact that Upton, the bill's author, is using biased, leading language in describing his bill -therefore equating a vote against it as a vote for pornography- shows exactly what kind of morals he is leaning on to get it passed. He knows pols can't vote no for barring 'porn' from children, even when there is no porn.
Look, Upton and Co. can dislike GTA, Hot Coffee, etc. as much as they like. But from a law-making standpoint, there is absolutely nothing he can do-- except pass useless, vote-pandering bills like this.
and you know the MOvie industry won’t ever let that happen. Think of all the money they make from Unrated movies going to dvd
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the rest of your statement. I agree that the bill should pertain to both games and movies if it passes, but there are two big differences with this last bit.
1) If a movie is released unrated, then nothing was snuck passed the ratings boards. Unrated is the industry's way of saying that they expect too high a rating and are just gonna leave it unwatched.
2) This is fine for movies because Unrated movies can be found in most music/movie stores. Unrated games, however, are much harder to find. Personally I think that most game stores today (including EB and so forth) don't carry as wide a selection of games as they used to (and nothing like a movie store that may carry almost every movie released since B&W). These stores are poorly organized and a mess overall. Almost every large chain store has made it apparent that they will not sell AO games (because they are not worth the hassle) but at the same time, ever since Mortal Combat, no game has been sold unrated either. A game cannot be released in stores while Rating Pending, and that causes a big schysm in the industy sales methods.
“I can’t believe he started talking about parental responsibility then flip-flopped to calling the ESRB porn-peddlers.”
I can’t believe you so missed the point he is portraying the ESRB as the victim of porn peddlers not porn peddlers themselves.
“I love how blatantly they try to stereotype game makers”
I love how your blatantly reading in what you want to see he makes it quite clear only a few *cough*T2*cough* of being bad apples, this is not a stereotype. Anti-politician bias is as bad as anti-gamer bias.
“Has anyone looked through the rewrite of the bill and determined these three things?”
It a four page document (really 3 since the last page is 2 lines) written in large font double space, it takes longer to type the post you made asking about it then to read it, but any way:
1) None
2) None
3) Not much:
I don’t believe the 14th ,despite what ever one else is saying, apply here. You people have a far over reaching idea of what the 14th covers, this bill is tailored so it only address trade practices It is not against the 14th for two industries (even industries which included as part of its functions things which are under the 14th amendments) to have different trade regulations. This only deal with a part of the industry that is not protected under the constitution therefore no equal protection.
Secondly the issue of chilling effect is unlikely remember like libel or slander you have to prove intent, which is very difficult.
Thirdly yes we already have laws dealing with deceptive trade practice this bill would be considered a clarification/ expansion/needless but legal redudence of those laws.
Lastly this bill language deals with a form of deception that IS unique to games in films raters see everything before they rate it. In videogames they see choice segments produced by the videogame publishers (a potential conflict of interest situation really) there for they can chose not to show the ESRB the worse part of the game. Think mandatory violent cut scene more so the hot coffee for this example.
"3. Pornographic? Sounds like someone needs to re-read the Miller Test. Hot Coffee contained to nudity ON THE DISC, so therefore cannot be considered pornography. Tawdy, ribald, poor-taste, explicit, whatever. But not porn."
Yes that would be you (and probably him as well as well but I’m focusing on you) pornography is ultimately a subjective personal definition and even the dictionary definition includes lurid and sensational material as an expectable use of the word. The miller test deals with obscenity a much more narrowly defined concept then pornography. The two terms are NOT interchangeable
It's only libel if the person involved knows they're wrong, but says it anyway. If they actually believe what they're saying, then it's allowed.
It's the same reason why Jack's never been sued for libel, no matter how many crazed press releases he's put out.
1. Intentionally deceived? Prove it, asshat.
2. Violent? No, the ESRB knew about that. In fact, GTA is rather tame on blood'n'guts, being only shocking it's 'realism.'
3. Pornographic? Sounds like someone needs to re-read the Miller Test. Hot Coffee contained to nudity ON THE DISC, so therefore cannot be considered pornography. Tawdy, ribald, poor-taste, explicit, whatever. But not porn. Hell there's more nudity in Catwoman than in GTA, even including Hot Coffee.
I wish someone would put up a YouTube of the pre-scandal Hot Coffee scene as it existed on the disc. When you see it, it's quite clear it lacks any sort of polish that the rest of the game got, and was quite evidently never intended for play.
Y'know what I suggest? A billt hat enforces that at least one personw ith ANY common sense (gamer or otherwise) must attend these announcements and have the right to speak out.
I can't believe he started talking about parental responsibility then flip-flopped to calling the ESRB porn-peddlers. here's the big question, parents, IF the ESRB is selling porn disguised as games to your kids, then where'd the get the money? Or better yet, if your kids are watching porn without you knowing then why haven't you talked to them about it?
It's times like this that I wonder when our entire nation went retarded.. I think it's something in all the bottled water we keep buying.
So anyone care to explain when the ratings board was deceived about violence? I mean, Hot Coffee only included sex. All the violence in the game, and every other game that I know of was already known to the ESRB.
It's mentioned every time this sort of legislation is brought up here, but we already know. Woul;dn't it be nice if we could get the rest of the world to care.
Currently that mean only the ESRB. The language allows for another ratings board to be affected as long as they put a rating on the retail box of the game.
No content control that I can see. Someone is going to argue a chilling affect, I've got a feeling... or maybe thats the AC unit blowing on my back.
As for number 3, no idea really. Leave that to one of our legally versed members.
does the FTC punish people for sneaking stuff past the MPAA?
That may be the only major stumbling block for this bill is that it doesn't deal with books movies, tv and so forth.
While not as major as some other amendments, that issue alone may sink the bill if they don't correct it, and you know the MOvie industry won't ever let that happen. Think of all the money they make from Unrated movies going to dvd
Honestly, how this not considered slanderous and libel?
Has anyone looked through the rewrite of the bill and determined these three things?
1. What level,if any, of content control this aims to give the FTC.
2. What level of oversight, if any, this aims to give the FTC over the ESRB when assigning ratings,.
3. What, if any, coudl be the legal problems for this bill, if any, should the industry chose to sue to have it blocked.
If someone could do me a favor and explain these three points, it would help me to determine weather or not this bills sucks as much as others in the past.
As mentioned in previous topics, don't wee have laws regarding deceptive advertising practices?
1 company with shitty coding practices left a small, rather incomplete, mini game featuring clothed, or featureless characters dry humping. Oh yeah, and it cannot be accessed by any in game function created by Rockstar. Infact none of the patches ever introduced would let you access it. To get to it you had to change the game and make it a non retail release.
Damnit T2/R* why did you have to go "it was the Haxors"? God knows how much shit would have never gone flying if you had came out with a strong statement explaining what happened. No you had to wait for it to blow fuck up before you did anything. You let what could have been a metaphorical 3 mile island turn in to a fucking Chernobyl. Thanks, now we have to deal with the fallout. (Oh!!! I said something witty!)
There was no massive shattering of faith in the ratings board. There was not a few bad players, there was no intentional deception.
The media needs to stop turn press releases into stories.
I think he is using the wrong definition of practical.
Ok I think I covered most of the common threads that pop up.
...