Comments on: Update: Thompson’s Latest Attempt http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/02/08/update-thompsons-latest-attempt/ In-depth legal analysis and news for video games and virtual worlds Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:59:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dog Welder http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/02/08/update-thompsons-latest-attempt/comment-page-1/#comment-504 Dog Welder Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:15:51 +0000 http://www.gameslaw.net/?p=476#comment-504 Mauler, I'm not familiar with that program, but I can guess what it is. That right there would be a huge "unintended consequence." State makes a huge program to get retailers on board to fight alcohol sales to minors. State passes inane, toothless law. State loses all the retailers in their alcohol programs. Way to go, Utah! Mauler,

I’m not familiar with that program, but I can guess what it is. That right there would be a huge “unintended consequence.” State makes a huge program to get retailers on board to fight alcohol sales to minors. State passes inane, toothless law. State loses all the retailers in their alcohol programs. Way to go, Utah!

]]> By: Mauler http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/02/08/update-thompsons-latest-attempt/comment-page-1/#comment-502 Mauler Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:46:24 +0000 http://www.gameslaw.net/?p=476#comment-502 I also submit that it's going to do harm to the "We Card" program, which is an advertisement that they will card people under 27 if they attempt to purchase booze or tobacco. I also submit that it’s going to do harm to the “We Card” program, which is an advertisement that they will card people under 27 if they attempt to purchase booze or tobacco.

]]> By: Dog Welder http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/02/08/update-thompsons-latest-attempt/comment-page-1/#comment-500 Dog Welder Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:47:11 +0000 http://www.gameslaw.net/?p=476#comment-500 Only a complete failure like Thompson could declare this completely toothless and meaningless bill as a huge victory. All the retailers have to do is either: 1) Not advertise or state that their policy is to not sell M-rated games to minors, OR 2) Change the language that states this policy "is not guaranteed." The problem in Jack's disease-addled mind is he believes the ESRB label on the game constitutes an "advertisement" and an "admission of guilt" by the game industry that their products are harmful to minors when it means no such thing. Technically, according to this bill: --A parent could sue if their 9-year-old purchased an E-10 rated game without their permission. --A parent could sue if their 6-year-old purchased the board game "Life" without their permission. (Silly example, but work with me here.) Also, how does an "Unrated" DVD work into this? My point is, this bill opens up a potential floodgate of silly and vexatious litigation. I'll be curious if the ESA will even try to fight this, but they could be joined by the MPAA and the RIAA in this, as well (and they have bigger lawyers). Only a complete failure like Thompson could declare this completely toothless and meaningless bill as a huge victory. All the retailers have to do is either:

1) Not advertise or state that their policy is to not sell M-rated games to minors, OR
2) Change the language that states this policy “is not guaranteed.”

The problem in Jack’s disease-addled mind is he believes the ESRB label on the game constitutes an “advertisement” and an “admission of guilt” by the game industry that their products are harmful to minors when it means no such thing.

Technically, according to this bill:
–A parent could sue if their 9-year-old purchased an E-10 rated game without their permission.
–A parent could sue if their 6-year-old purchased the board game “Life” without their permission. (Silly example, but work with me here.)

Also, how does an “Unrated” DVD work into this?

My point is, this bill opens up a potential floodgate of silly and vexatious litigation. I’ll be curious if the ESA will even try to fight this, but they could be joined by the MPAA and the RIAA in this, as well (and they have bigger lawyers).

]]>