Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York Video Game Bill

June 26, 2008 -

The Entertainment Merchants Association, the trade group which represents the interests of a large bloc of video game retailers, has issued a statement on Tuesday's passage of video game legislation by the New York State Senate:

The bill is unnecessary and seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. But we do not anticipate that video game software retailers will have a problem complying with its requirements. (It is important to note that NY law already requires DVD packages to display the rating of the movie.)

With passage in both the New York State Senate and Assembly, the measure now proceeds to Gov. David Paterson, who is likely to sign it into law.


Comments

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

Hi all..Anyone who thinks that there aren't any negative effects in playing video games is kidding themselves, fooling themselves because there is a negative impact of everything we do, and is more likely to give the fervant anti-gamers more ammo.

Lets take an established example shall we, footbal in this case (the soccer kind not american), if we look at all the negative impacts of football, breakage of limbs, straining of muscles mob violence and even death.

So clearly following this logic, football is the biggest peril that we know to man and should be clearly banned, made ilegal and all footbal couches should be sentanced to life in prisonment for the damage that they have caused society.

Clearly, this hasn't happened.

And why is this?

Because no study in football has been conducted without also looking into the positive aspects, rather than just the positive ones.

So anyone who says that games are completely harmless fun is obviously unaware to the geeks who can't hold down a social life, but clearly, this isn't true of all gamers, its the same with booze, one of the more social accetable bad habits, nearly everyone drinks but only a small percent of those people go on to comit DUI.

Another thing here, I see "unconsitional" thrown alot around here, and I also see the violent negative reaction that it is met with almost everywhere, but in this case i feel that the reaction is unjustified, for what I can make out what many in the anti-video game are trying to do is introduce laws which say that you can't be a 12 year old and walk into a store and buy GTA, and I whole heartily support them in this measure, and if you really feel that your, or your kids rights are being violated, buy it for your kids, really its that simple, the state deems that content A is not suitable for people a below a certain age and believe that the state is wrong in this conclusion, then by all means, buiy your son GTA, if you happen to be said son, I don't beleiev that as a child that you have the power to make a informed decesion and that the power of state and parent makes that decesion for you.

ankara evden eve ankara evden eve ankara evden eve nakliyat ankara nakliyat saç ekimi saç ekimi ankara evden eve nakliyat evden eve

very nice sites.good.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

I really could care less about what the bill is trying to do, these actions in and of themselves are not all that dangerous. The danger is this sets a mark on the law that other laws of this sort can use. What I'm saying is the passage of this into law will make it much easier for other gaming laws to come to pass that could do much more damage to the industry.

It's times like this I feel embarassed to think I came from that state...

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

I'm really glad this stance is made.

I believe this is a issue between the consumer, the merchant, the publisher and the developer.  The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

If the Senate's version of this bill is similar to the Assembly's A11717, I doubt the industry will sue. It costs money to fight in court, and the bill doesn't require ratings for games that haven't already been rated.

I do wish this were overturned, as the mandate to display any ratings at all, even for games already rated, is a form of compelled speech. I understand the requirement to label food and other stuff that may kill us, but video games are speech and should not be required to display any ratings. Consider: If NY law were similarly amended to regulate comic books and Marvel decided to republish an old comic, it would be required to include the Comics Code Authority seal of approval in those comic books, whether it wanted to or not. That's not free speech.

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

So movies are required to have it to. I didn't know that. Still i think this bill is just a waste. Just makes politicans look like they are doing something useful when they really are not. Ugh.

What will come of this? What if the ESRB shuts down?

-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block and Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, a book by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl
Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: Game Retailers Trade Group Reacts to Passage of New York

If there is a similar law regarding DVD cases, and this law is simply bringing things into line with current practice for New York, then, personally, I don't have a problem with it. Though, I'm surprised that establishments in the US are so eager to ignore their own constitution.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician