The cringe-inducing video featuring Kurt Cobain’s Guitar Hero 5 avatar performing songs from the likes of Bon Jovi, Bush and Public Enemy has been taken off of YouTube due to a copyright claim from Activision.

The user who posted the video has had his account disabled as well reports Kotaku. corporalgregg3 wrote,  “Yeah, my last account was permanently disabled due to (I think) Activision. Right before my account was shut down, the Kurt Cobain vid was removed due to copyright claim by Activision Games Inc.”

Cobain’s widow Courtney Love had threatened to “sue the shit” out of Activision over his use in the game before Activision responded with a claim to have a signed document from Love for just such use. Unfortunately (fortunately?) Love’s main means of communicating, her Twitter account, has been deactivated.

Chinese officials have launched a new initiative designed to rid the country’s Internet of illegal games featuring content deemed inappropriate (by the government) for its citizens.

Yahoo reports that 45 online games have been shut down so far, some of which had players partake in games with illegal activity such as selling drugs or peddling hookers. 200 games in all were investigated according to the report, with some given time to eliminate or change any illegal aspects.

The campaign was launched in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the founding of communist China on October 1.

Earlier this year the Chinese government targeted games featuring organized crime.

While Venezuela has been the (unwilling) setting for at least one violent video game (Mercenaries 2: World in Flames), lawmakers there are moving ahead with plans to ban violent games and toys.

The effort, reports Reuters, is aimed at reducing an unprecedented wave of crime and violence. According to Reuters, dozens of people are murdered in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas every week.

A measure detailing the proposed ban passed Venezuela's National Assembly this week. In order to become law, the game ban bill would need to be voted on a second time and then signed into law by President Hugo Chavez.

If passed, the video game ban would not be the first time that the Venezuelan government has targeted a form of media in response to social issues. In 2008 the government banned The Simpsons as unsuitable for children.

The popular, World War II-themed RTS Company of Heroes is shortly to enter the Chinese game market as Company of Heroes Online, reports Kotaku.

When it does, all references to Nazi Germany will have been purged. The German side will be renamed "The Federation," while iron cross symbols on German vehicles and buildings will also be changed.

In recent times, Germany has become Ground Zero in the debate over video game violence.

Consider that the German Parliament is expected to consider a total ban on the production and distribution of violent games next month. Meanwhile, top-tier developer Crytek (Far Cry, Crysis) has threatened to relocate out of the country if the ban becomes law.

In the latest development, EA exec Gerhard Florin (left) has called for Germany to drop its USK content rating system in favor of the PEGI system, which is widely in use in other European nations. Said Florin:

What we're doing here [with USK rating] is censorship. And no one complains. When we talk about games here it's about violence or their alleged addictiveness, and not about their cultural status. The few good studios are asking themselves why they should stay here anyway.

USK boss Marek Brunner took issue with Florin's criticism:

It's hard when half-truths are being used. They say the USK does this wrong, the USK does that bad and why doesn't this get a rating?

Brunner noted that other government bodies influence the type of game content which can be sold, including the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons and the criminal courts.

Via: gamesindustry.biz

The Associated Press reports that the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the interests of U.S. video game publishers, spent $1.2 million on government lobbying efforts during the period April-June, 2009.

Looking beneath the surface, GamePolitics has obtained an actual copy of the ESA's latest federal lobbying report. The document shows that Big Gaming has its fingers in a surprising number of legislative and governmental pies. The following are issues which the ESA reports that it lobbied on in Q2:

• Media regulation
• First Amendment protection
• Entertainment industry ratings
• Parental control technology
• Content/video game sale regulation
• Retailer enforcement of ratings
• Piracy
• Copyright Act (believed to be the DMCA)
• Anti-circumvention
• Patent modernization
• Intellectual property enforcement
• Customs reauthorization
• PRO-IP Act appropriations
• Dept. of Justice appropriations
• Dept. of State reauthorization
• Free Trade Agreements
• Special 301 Designated Countries
• Trade Policy Reform
• Domestic regulatory & administrative issues
• Trade enforcement
• Doha Round Proceedings (trade talks)
• Trade Promotion Authority
• Internet Governance
• Virtual worlds
• Online gaming
• Highly skilled workforce
• H1-B visas
• Green cards
• Immigration reform
• ISP management
• Copyright Enforcement
• Broadband deployment
• Broadband policy
• Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act implementation

Agencies lobbied by the ESA include some surprising entities. Here's the list:

• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
• Federal Communications Commission
• Federal Trade Commission
• National Telecommunications & Information Administration
• U.S. Copyright Office
• U.S. Customs & Border Protection
• U.S. Trade Representative
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Justice
• Patent & Trademark Office
• FBI
• National Security Council

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab your own copy of the ESA's lobbying report... (9-page PDF)

Video game publishers could gain direct access to the massive Chinese market following a ruling by the World Trade Organization that China may not invoke culture-based censorship to block foreign media imports such as books, games and movies.

According to Reuters, the WTO ruling came in response to an April, 2007 complaint filed by the United States:

The WTO ruling could potentially affect how foreign video game companies operate in China.

U.S. video game titans such as Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and Take Two Interactive, are not allowed to operate games directly in China, or through joint ventures with local firms. They instead license games to local operators or co-develop games with local firms.

But the WTO ruling was unlikely to overcome China's determination to govern the virtual landscape, said Dick Wei, vice president of equity research with JP Morgan in Hong Kong.

Yesterday, GamePolitics reported on Risen, the latest game to fall victim to Australia's outdated content rating system. The RPG, currently in development by Piranha Bytes, was refused classification for the Australian market, largely because Down Under lacks the equivalent of the ESRB's M (17+) rating.

The situation frustrates Tom Crago, who heads the Game Developers Association of Australia. Crago spoke to itwire about his concerns:

Well it’s a joke isn’t it?  We are once again caught in this awful, ridiculous web of the antiquated classification system...  Here in Australia the sooner that changes, the better; it is obviously a battle to ensure common sense prevails.  We will get there eventually, but in the meantime as gamers in Australia we suffer, and to be honest we are embarrassed at how backward our government is...

The biggest problem we have here in Australia is that we don’t have an R classification for video games...  It’s ridiculous because it assumes that games are fundamentally different to film and outrageous in that it assumes that adults shouldn’t be allowed to access adult content in video games... 

We are the butt of a lot of jokes; I travel, obviously a lot, talking to other developers and publishers and people cannot believe it that we still have this ridiculous system here in Australia, designed twenty or thirty years ago, and hasn’t changed since...

[South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson] is of course the problem... clearly this is a guy that doesn’t get it, and to be honest, I don’t think, ever will get it...

The upcoming role-playing game Risen has become the latest victim of Australia's flawed game content rating system.

Refused Classification reports that Australia's classification board has declined to assign a rating to the game, which is being developed by Piranha Bytes. The board's action makes Risen the third game of 2009 to be RC'd Down Under; the others are 1C's first-person shooter Necrovision and something called Sexy Poker.

In the U.S. market, Risen has been rated M (17+) by the ESRB. Australia, however, has no rating higher than MA15+, which means that any title judged not suitable for a 15-year-old is effectively banned. Australian gamers have been lobbying their government unsuccessfully for an R18+ rating for several years.

The classification refusal might not be the final word, however. Risen could be edited by its creators enough to slip by Australian censors. This approach has worked for other games, most recently Necrovision.

Risen is scheduled for October release on Xbox 360 and PC. The website R18+ is a useful source for information about the ongoing Australian content rating debate.

Far Cry and Crysis developer Crytek has renewed threats to leave Germany if a proposed ban on violent video games is passed. As GamePolitics noted in June, the recommendation by German interior ministers would impose a total ban on the production and distribution of violent games.

Edge Online has comment from Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli (left) on what the unprecedented government action would mean for his company:

A ban on action games in Germany is concerning us because it is essentially like banning the German artists that create them. If the German creative community can't effectively participate in one of the most important cultural mediums of our future, we will be forced to relocate to other countries.

The current political discussion will deprive German talent of its place on the global game development stage, and deprive German consumers of entertainment that is considered safe and fun around the world.

How extreme is the anti-game sentiment in certain quarters of the German government? So extreme that in 2004, a SWAT team raided Crytek's offices. Crytek developer Tim Partlett described the scene:

In 2004 the Bavarian authorities sent in the state troopers... When the small tech team appeared to inspect our computers, they were accompanied by over one hundred flak-jacketed riot police, all armed with Heckler and Koch sub-machine guns.

It was a total overreaction... They arrived first thing in the morning, and kicked down our doors. They even raided the nearby private residences...

I was caught just outside the office...  We were all shepherded into our Mo-Cap room, and there we were forced to remain until questioned, prevented from leaving by dozens of armed guards...

More than 60,000 Germans have signed a petition against the ban, triggering a mandatory government review of the proposal.

The government of China has implemented a crackdown against online games which feature organized crime themes, reports the New York Times: 

On Monday, the Ministry of Culture issued a notice banning online games that feature Mafioso kingpins, marauding street gangs or any sort of hooliganism predisposed to organization.

The decree, which promises “severe punishment” for violators but fails to specify the penalties, also prohibits Web sites from including links to Internet games that glorify organized crime.

Such games, the ministry said, “embody antisocial behavior like killing, beating, looting and raping,” and their availability “gravely threatens and distorts the social order and moral standards, easily putting young people under harmful influence.”

 As GamePolitics has reported, video games are a frequent target of Chinese government scrutiny.

So far, every single law seeking to restrict the sale of violent video games has been struck down by the federal courts; it would seem that such legislation is a losing proposition.  So how else might the government try to regulate our favorite pastime?  Writing for Joystiq, lawyer and gamer Mark Methenitis offers two possible scenarios which censorcrats might seek to employ.

The first is to impose content restrictions - not on the type of violence that can be shown but on the type of stories that can be told or the types of characters presented. The idea here would be to ensure that games are politically correct so as not to offend anyone and prevent flaps over perceived racism in games like Resident Evil 5, Left 4 Dead 2, or Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood.  Of course, this still boils down to regulating speech so it’s not likely to be any more successful in the courts than restricting violent content has been.

The second is an idea presented by Jack Thompson during his debate with Methenitis at SGC09 earlier this month. Thompson speculated that the Obama administration might address America’s obesity issues by regulating our play time. But how? The government can’t just march into your home and turn off your Xbox. While there is no indication that Obama is planning any such thing, Methenitis explains how such a scenario might work:

When the government wants you to stop doing something, they tax it. Alcohol is taxed. Tobacco is taxed. Certain kinds of less-fuel efficient cars are taxed. In short, the theory is "fewer people buy things at a higher cost." And it's something that can be levied against both retail sales and digital downloads.

Taxing games is not a new idea but with the economy the way it is, now seems like the absolute worst time to try it.  Still, you never know. Methenitis:

It's always difficult to predict what the government may or may not do, or how the courts may or may not rule. The system, however, relies on the vigilance of the public to ensure that our rights are not infringed....

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen...

In the latest edition of his Soapbox, G4's Adam Sessler expresses the view that video game censorship is pretty much gone, but that gamers should be watchful for its return.

GP: Here at GamePolitics, we're waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in the California case later this year. At that point, we'll have a better handle on where the game censorship issue is heading.

Sometime this fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review California's appeal of lower court rulings striking down its 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional. Yesterday, the video game industry submitted its position to the Court.

In a 41-page brief compiled by attorney Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, the game industry relies heavily on precedents set by a history of failed attempts by state and local governments to impose age-based restrictions on video games. Indeed, the game biz has never lost such a case and Smith has been their successful point man for many years. From the brief:

Despite [California's] efforts to conjure up some argument for review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, in reality the decision is a routine application of established First Amendment principles to a content-based ban on protected expression.

Petitioners offer no persuasive reason for the Court to review this ruling. There is no split of
[past decisions] on the questions presented. To the contrary, the lower courts are unanimous as to the constitutionality of bans on distribution of violent video games. That is unsurprising...

California was not the first state to try to restrict distribution of video games it considered too violent for minors. Such laws have proved politically popular, but every one has been struck down under the First Amendment...

Smith and his fellow attorney also dig into California's assertion that children should be legally shielded from violent video games as they are from obscenity. California's causation arguments, which attempt to link violent video games to violent behavior, are also taken to task.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the game industry brief here (41-page PDF)...

As GamePolitics and other news outlets have reported, the ESA is suing the Chicago Transit Authority over the agency's ban on M and AO-rated video ads.

Here are excerpts from the justification section of CTA Ordinace 008-147, the document at the heart of the ESA lawsuit:

WHEREAS... the Chicago Transit Board established advertising guidelines permitting certain advertising in or upon Chicago Transit Authority vehicles and facilities; and

 

WHEREAS, According to an August 2008 Chicago Sun Times article at least 36 Chicago public school students have been killed since September 2007; and

 

WHEREAS, There is a demonstrable correlation between intensely violent video or computer games and violent or aggressive behavior (see "Video Game Violence and Public Policy" by David Walsh, Ph.D. and "The Effects of Violent Video Game Habits on Adolescent Hostility, Aggressive Behaviors, and School Performance" by Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh; and

 

WHEREAS, There is evidence that many of these violent video or computer games are marketed toward children under 17 years of age (see Federal Trade Commission study, September, 2000)...

The 2000 FTC report is, indeed, an indictment of video game industry marketing practices. On the other hand, the industry has made remarkable strides since then in restricting the access of minors to violent games.

In its May, 2008 report, the FTC found an 80% overall compliance rate in retail ratings enforcement, with top performer GameStop achieving a 94% compliance rate. Given that the CTA ordinance was passed in November, 2008, it's unclear why the 2000 data was used.

The full CTA ordinance may be found as "Exhibit 2" in the ESA's lawsuit. Click here for a copy of the 70-page PDF.

A spokeswoman for the Chicago Transit Authority has commented on the federal lawsuit filed against the agency's ban on M-rated video game ads yesterday by the Entertainment Software Association.

Kotaku reports:

Reached for comment... Wanda Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Transit Authority, told Kotaku that the authority has not yet been served with the suit but that they feels that the ordinance is defensible.

"The CTA does not allow advertising for alcohol or tobacco products and this ordinance is consistent with that long-standing policy," she said...

Taylor pointed out that they have a number of guidelines in place for determining if an advertisement can run on the CTA. The guidelines, she said, require ads to be truthful and not directed at inciting imminent lawless action. The ads cannot be legally obscene, sexually explicit, depict nudity or portray graphic violence nor can they incite lawless illegal action.

Never mind imposing tougher safety standards on imports from China, writes South Carolina attorney and activist Tom Turnipseed (left).

In an op-ed for The State, Turnipseed urges Inez Tenenbaum, the new chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to make her first priority a ban on war toys and war games:

It’s easier for children to play with war toys than to learn how to read or play the piano. War toys teach children aggression. Aggression needs an outlet, but aggression can be played out in a non-violent manner with peaceful games.

Children should know what really happens in a war. People are hurt, maimed and killed. War toys, games, television shows and movies using guns seldom show the real effect of what violence does to people...

 

Studies indicate a direct correlation between exposure to media violence, especially interactive video games, and increased childhood aggression...

Better alternatives to children enjoying shooting at people and blowing up buildings are games that encourage the use of their minds, skills and physical dexterity in activities promoting the sanctity of life and peace.

Turnipseed served as a South Carolina state senator (D) from 1976 to1980. He made unsuccessful runs for Congress (1980) and South Carolina Attorney General (1998).

The top dog at U.K developer A-steroids, creator of Underworld: Sweet Deal for the iPhone, is worried that his company's game is going to be rejected by Apple over its drug-dealing theme.

As readers may recall, this is a bit of an ongoing saga. GamePolitics reported in December, 2008 that A-steroids had renamed the game, originally called DrugLords, in an effort to avoid an App Store ban. A few days later, an Englishwoman who lost her daughter to heroin abuse called upon Apple to ban the game, whatever its title.

Apparently the issue is still up in the air, based on an e-mail GamePolitics received today from Andrey Podoprigora, Head of Studio for A-steroids:

We have recently released our first game on the AppStore - Underworld: SweetDeal. The game was previously known as DrugLords, location-based MMO about dirty trade...

This week, we have submitted the game in it's original drug-trade setting to the AppStore. We were hoping that after the iPhone 3.0 came out with it's parental controls improved, there is a chance for the game to finally come through.

Now, we have got an update from Apple, saying they require "unexpected additional time for review". Which is sort of bad because we are already familiar with responses like that - in December, 2008 this led to months of silence and then ended up as a reject. Would be sad if it means nothing changes in Apple's app reviewing policy.

Over at GameTopius, paralegal-in-training Nikhil Baliga (who also has degrees in Political Science and Psychology) serves up a look at First Amendment issues as they relate to games.

While Baliga does a nice job of tracing some of the major case law, the article's main points could be stated with more clarity. This paragraph, for example, seems to imply that video games are not necessarily constitutionally-protected speech (they are):

What well intentioned, but usually ill informed, video game advocates often assume is that video games are constitutionally protected free speech. While there can be no doubt that video games are speech, the Supreme Court has stated that not all speech is constitutionally protected.

Later, Baliga explains that this is a reference to video games which might be considered legally obscene under the so-called Miller Test. The fact is, however, that the likelihood of that happening in the U.S. market, given the ESRB rating system, console licensing requirements and screening by major retailers, is roughly nil.

While there could be a non-commercial game or import (say, RapeLay) that might - might - meet the Miller obscenity standard, implying that commercial video games are not protected speech is roughly akin to saying that Hollywood movies aren't necessarily protected speech because there are also kiddie porn films.

Still in all, worth a read.

GP: Readers should note that Baliga is not a lawyer and neither is GP. So, take both opinions with the appropriate grain of salt.

Developers of Sony's upcoming God of War III are concerned that the game's graphic violence may prompt a ban on sales of the game in the Australian market, reports Digital Life.

Australian censors have historically been tough on games featuring extreme violence. That's largely due to the lack of an R18+ rating Down Under. With Australia's highest rating currently at MA15+, any game not suitable for a 15-year-old is refused classification.

GoW III art director Sean Cunningham commented on the design team's worries over the game's Australian rating:

There is (concern). We try to push the boundaries a little bit. (But) we’ve had meetings and discussions and internally we all have a good gauge on what’s 'too far'.

You throw something past [content rating boards] and they might say 'Absolutely not! You could not do that!' and we’re all like: 'Aww, c’mon, that was a great idea!' There have been a couple of those…

Also visually, everyone’s really excited. The disembowelment of the centaur, ripping Helios’s head off, the reaction from the floor has been amazing. Everybody in the studio is very happy....

God of War III is due in 2010. As the first GoW game to appear on the PlayStation 3, the visual quality of its violent scenes will certainly be more intense than those found in the franchise's PS2 games.

Via: Kotaku

Thanks to: Australian GamePolitics reader Ryan for the tip!