That's what this law made itself out to be, but that wasn't what it was.
The State of California wanted to make it illegal for retailers to sell "violent video games" to minors. A salesperson selling a violent game to a kid wouldn't just be in trouble with an upset parent or boss, but with the law.
Lots of places have store policies to not sell mature-rated material to kids already, and making a law for it is just overkill. Also, it sets a precedence for everything else: if they can do it for video games, what'd stop them for doing the same thing to movies? Music? Books? Also, keep in mind it wasn't "M-rated games", it was "violent video games" - that's super vague and subjective, and that just opens up way too many problems too.
That's the problem. And that's why it's a very good thing that after spending millions of dollars and years of time, the law was shot down. Like everyone knew it would from the very beginning.
When you win a substantial case like this in the U.S., it's seemingly natural that the prevailing side be reimbursed for its legal costs (one lawyer spent roughly 321 hours in court at an hourly rate of - wait for it! - $765). However, it's unfortunate that this case got this far, at the California taxpayers' expense if the ESA is reimbursed.
Mind you, the ESA released the paper The 2011 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry in which they state the industry "generates over $25 billion in annual revenue, and directly and indirectly employs more than 120, 000 people with an average salary for direct employees of $90, 000." Michael D. Gallagher, President and CEO, ESA
I bring this fact up to simply illustrate how unfortunate the situation had become - dragging a billion dollar industry though the courts, costing millions of dollars, is something that didn't have to happen. However, it did, and now it might make some people wary and critical about the ESA's reimbursement. It seems entirely plausible that since I thought of this, someone else already did, and that other person might then wonder why a billion dollar industry needs to be reimbursed at the taxpayers' expense. Compound this with a previous news item about art games being funded (and how some don't even want the arts to be funded by the government) I think this might rub some citizens the wrong way. However, I feel that paying for the ESA's legal bills in a case that turned on freedom of expression might be one of those "necessary costs" for freedom.
Also, it seems all the court bills aren't in yet: the costs for 2011 haven't been added that $1.1 mil.
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 10:46:29 PM CDT on July 26, 2011.
The Echo Effect
Otaku Eternal | Posted 07/27/11 | Reply
@SomeGuy:
Ah, so the law was written very badly. That makes sense. Thank you for the info!
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 07/27/11 | Reply
@The Echo Effect:
That's what this law made itself out to be, but that wasn't what it was.
The State of California wanted to make it illegal for retailers to sell "violent video games" to minors. A salesperson selling a violent game to a kid wouldn't just be in trouble with an upset parent or boss, but with the law.
Lots of places have store policies to not sell mature-rated material to kids already, and making a law for it is just overkill. Also, it sets a precedence for everything else: if they can do it for video games, what'd stop them for doing the same thing to movies? Music? Books? Also, keep in mind it wasn't "M-rated games", it was "violent video games" - that's super vague and subjective, and that just opens up way too many problems too.
That's the problem. And that's why it's a very good thing that after spending millions of dollars and years of time, the law was shot down. Like everyone knew it would from the very beginning.
The Echo Effect
Otaku Eternal | Posted 07/27/11 | Reply
I don't actually see how it's that bad for underaged kids to not play violent things.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/26/11 | Reply
When you win a substantial case like this in the U.S., it's seemingly natural that the prevailing side be reimbursed for its legal costs (one lawyer spent roughly 321 hours in court at an hourly rate of - wait for it! - $765). However, it's unfortunate that this case got this far, at the California taxpayers' expense if the ESA is reimbursed.
Mind you, the ESA released the paper The 2011 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry in which they state the industry "generates over $25 billion in annual revenue, and directly and indirectly employs more than 120, 000 people with an average salary for direct employees of $90, 000." Michael D. Gallagher, President and CEO, ESA
I bring this fact up to simply illustrate how unfortunate the situation had become - dragging a billion dollar industry though the courts, costing millions of dollars, is something that didn't have to happen. However, it did, and now it might make some people wary and critical about the ESA's reimbursement. It seems entirely plausible that since I thought of this, someone else already did, and that other person might then wonder why a billion dollar industry needs to be reimbursed at the taxpayers' expense. Compound this with a previous news item about art games being funded (and how some don't even want the arts to be funded by the government) I think this might rub some citizens the wrong way. However, I feel that paying for the ESA's legal bills in a case that turned on freedom of expression might be one of those "necessary costs" for freedom.
Also, it seems all the court bills aren't in yet: the costs for 2011 haven't been added that $1.1 mil.
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 10:46:29 PM CDT on July 26, 2011.