Archive for October, 2008
Posted by Dan on
October 30, 2008
Tom Buscaglia, a.k.a. “The Game Attorney” and the only attorney I can think of who has given a gaming law panel while wearing a Quake III clan team jersey, has a column over at Gamasutra dealing with issues in game law, mainly from a developer’s standpoint. In the latest issue, he advises developers not to let publishers walk all over them when drafting and negotiating contracts. Tom is a great guy, and the article is a good read. Here’s a blurb.
The proper negotiation of a contract is a process that is too often ignored by developers, especially those eager to get a deal. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that the stereotypical game maker neither likes nor enjoys the process.
The harsh reality is that many, if not most, publishers are so used to developers being passive about the negotiation process that they have become arrogant and unwilling to actually engage in a meaningful negotiation dialog with developers.
The article is definitely worth your time, and Tom’s blog is definitely worth subscribing to.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
October 29, 2008
GamePolitics reports that the parties in the California lawsuit over a statute banning the sale of violent video games to minors may have finally agreed on something….the determination of the loser to appeal to the Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 3% [?]
Posted by Gwyddia on
October 29, 2008
NFL Hall of Fame player Herb Adderly is suing the NFL Players Association. His suit is similar to one filed by retired player Jim Brown against EA. Both claim that the retired players never gave permission for their numbers and likenesses to be used in EA’s Madden game series.
Neither of the suits is protesting the use of their likeness per se, but rather both contend that the retired players have been cheated out of profits and proceeds from the games. Adderly’s suit, a class action encompassing at least 2,000 players, even goes so far as to claim that EA’s failure to acquire Take Two Interactive was detrimental to the retired NFL players because such a deal would have been worth more money.
It is important to note that Adderly is not suing EA, but rather the NFL Players Association, with whom retired players have long had a contentious relationship. It remains to be seen whether gaming companies will be brought into the suit or implicated for any wrongdoing in the matter.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
October 28, 2008
Introduction
This is the third installment of my series on California’s statute which bars the sale of violent video games to minors. In Parts 1 and 2, I gave background information on the substance and procedure that led Justice Whyte of the US District Court for the Norther District of California, San Jose Division to strike it down. As you may know, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear the state’s appeal of the permanent injunction of the law in question this Wednesday. Therefore, I will be offering my prediction of the outcome based on judicial precedent. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
October 27, 2008
Introduction
This is (the long-delayed) Part 2 of my analysis and prediction of the outcome of Schwarzenegger’s appeal to get his video game sales restriction law reinstated. Here, I will give more background information on the proceedings in which a California Federal District Court struck down the statute. My mission for this series of articles is to give readers an understanding of exactly how a court finds a speech-restricting law unconstitutional. As such, I will start with a brief tutorial on the relevant judicial process, followed by application to this specific case. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 4% [?]
Posted by Dan on
October 26, 2008
Unbelievable. Is the 9/11 style New Yorker paranoia starting to reach D.C? GamePolitics is reporting that a D.C. Metro rider has written a letter to the Washington Post complaining about the imagery from a Fallout 3 advertisement depicting a Washington post-apocalyptic wasteland.
It’s absolutely astounding that someone who rides the metro in the district would be complaining about an advertisement. This is the same metro that has allowed advertisements from the “God Hates Fags” crowd, a bobblehead Pope, direct attacks accusing Washington Post staff of corruption, or chastising women who get abortions.
Metrorail riders who have passed through Metro Center over the past several weeks may have noticed signs throughout the station advertising a video game called “Fallout 3.” A heavily armored enemy soldier appears in the foreground of the ads, and the background includes images of seemingly war-ravaged national landmarks.
In one ad, the Washington Monument and the American flags surrounding it stand ravaged, as if hit by missiles. In another, the Capitol dome is partially caved in, while the rest of the building and the city behind it lie in ruins.
The people of our city do not need a daily reminder that Washington is a prime target for an attack. We do not need a daily reminder of what our worst fears look like. Since any First Amendment objection would be irrelevant (the ads do not present a true viewpoint or political message and would therefore not be protected), there is no reason for these ads to be part of our daily panorama.
The ads should be removed, and the appropriate office at Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority should be directed to exercise better judgment regarding what can be displayed in our transportation system.
JOSEPH ANZALONE
Ignoring for a second the horrid misconception of what the First Amendment covers or not, this guy is displaying the same paranoid anti-terrorism fear-mongering that has so dominated the last 7 years of this country. As a D.C. resident, I’m personally offended by this man’s arguments. Thankfully, the majority of D.C. residents I’ve spoken to about the ads think either that they are intriguing, (actually, most think that it’s for a movie or a TV show…obviously not gamers), or simply don’t care.
And what’s with the Brotherhood of Steel soldier being “a heavily armored enemy soldier”? Does he know something we don’t? Maybe this guy was the source of the Bethesda Softworks leak!
Popularity: 8% [?]
Posted by Dan on
October 25, 2008
Received this in my inbox today, this should be interesting to many of you.
What: Hearing on Appeal of California Video Game Law (Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger)
When: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 9:30 am
Where: McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific
Lecture Hall
3200 Fifth Avenue, Sacramento, CA
Background: In 2005, the state of California enacted a law to restrict the sale or rental to anyone under the age of 18 of computer and video games that are classified as “violent video games” if the depictions of violence in the games are offensive to the community or if the violence depicted is committed in an “especially heinous, cruel, or depraved” manner. The law was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2006.
Prior to the law taking effect, the Video Software Dealers Association (now the Entertainment Merchants Association) and the Entertainment Software Association filed suit against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and others to prevent its enforcement. The plaintiffs asserted that the law’s restriction on the sale or rental of certain violent video games violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to freedom of expression and equal protection of the laws and is unconstitutionally vague.
In August 2007, a federal district court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and permanently barred enforcement of California’s video game law. In doing so, the judge ruled that video games are protected by the First Amendment, the law is unduly restrictive and uses overly broad definitions, and the state failed to show that the limitations on violent video games would actually protect children.
The state of California appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As part of that appeal, a three-judge panel of that court will hear arguments by the plaintiffs and the state on the constitutionality of the law.
Additional information and links to case documents are at
http://www.entmerch.org/schwarzenneger.html
Interview Requests: To interview executives of the Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly the Video Software Dealers Association) about the case, contact Sean Bersell, Vice President – Public Affairs, Entertainment Merchants Association at 818-728-8663 (via cell at 818-679-7949 on October 29) or sbersell@entmerch.org.
If any California GamesLaw readers intend to go to this, please get in touch with me, as I have a few small requests.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Posted by Liz Surette on
October 24, 2008
Because I have heard no word that the Federal District Court has stayed Jack Thompson’s disbarment, I can only assume that we can close the book on this chapter in gaming’s history. Read the rest of this entry »
Popularity: 6% [?]
Posted by Dan on
October 22, 2008
Now for another update on Jack Thompson. Just think, soon we’ll be free (hopefully) from all this line of news.
Andrew writes:
Included in today’s update is the wonderful Supplement filed earlier today in which GamesLaw is mentioned, as well as a Notice by the Florida Bar of the Appearance of the Attornies for the defense.
There is also a Notice by John Bruce of a Sworn Statement by a Third Party in support of John Bruce’s request for an Emergency Stay on behalf of Bill Corbin, another disbarred attorney.
Grab the files here.
Popularity: 23% [?]
Posted by Dan on
October 21, 2008
Jack Thompson really doesn’t like us now. Not as much as he hates GamePolitics, or the ECA, or even Kotaku (Hi Crecente!) but still, we’re not on his christmas list.
As evidence of this, Thompson has recently filed a motion in his lawsuit against the Florida Bar referring to this website, GamesLaw.net, as a “video game enem[y]” doing “criminal activities”. But get this, it’s a motion to….stay the Jack Thompson Disbarment Countdown Clock that a user at the ECA forums created. Yep. Clearly, this is a proper use of the court’s valuable time.
Anyway, Thompson rants predictably in his motion, accusing Kotaku Managing Editor Brian Crecente and Gawker Media founder Nick Denton of being gay, and wanting a homosexual tryst with Thompson; Strauss Zelnick of Take-Two interactive of essentially supporting murder art; and other less interesting rants against the ESA, the ECA, Doug Lowenstein, etc. His legal support for his motion is a quote from Jesus, followed up by accusing his detractors of being worse facist kooks than Justice Douglas’ “goose-stepping brigades.” Oh, and we’re a commerce-driven lynch mob. Right.
Mr. Thompson, we’re honored that you would think of us as your enemy, but we’re rather offended that you mentioned us in a motion rife with typos, and only give us a one sentence paragraph (with poor text justification at that). Seriously, would it hurt to run a spell checker?
Popularity: 18% [?]
