Federal District Judge Robert Lasnik of the Western District of Washington held, on summary judgement, that Washington's video game law was unconstitutional on free speech grounds. The law, which had been blocked by a preliminary injunction, "would have imposed a $500 fine on anyone, such as a store clerk, who sold a video game depicting violence against 'law enforcement officers'" to minors under age 17," according to Reuters (Judge Strikes Down Washington Video Game Sales Law). The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also has a report (Ban on violent videos struck down). Read the 15-page decision and order: Video Software Dealers Assoc. v. Maleng [PDF].
The case overall is a big win for free speech. However, the court also makes clear that this controversy will not be leaving us soon (See, for example: Opposition to Violent Videogames Continues).
Read on for some quotations and a summary of the case ....
A Broad Definition of Standing
The state of Washington claimed that the plaintiffs only had standing to challenge the statute on overbreadth grounds. The judge held that:
[P]laintiffs have asserted their own First Amendment rights and, in the context of the preliminary injunction motion, identified various injuries that they as game creators, distributors, and retailers would suffer if the Act became effective. Those potential injuries have not changed and the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act insofar as it directly affects the content and distribution of their speech. In addition, plaintiffs have standing to assert the First Amendment rights of their consumers, the minors who would have been deprived of access under the Act. [citation omitted]
Videogames Are Protected Speech
A huge win here.
The early generations of video games may have lacked the requisite expressive element, being little more than electronic board games or computerized races. The games at issue in this litigation, however, frequently involve intricate, if obnoxious, story lines, detailed artwork, original scores, and a complex narrative which evolves as the player makes choices and gains experience. All of the games provided to the Court for review are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the First Amendment. In fact, it is the nature and effect of the message being communicated by these video games which prompted the state to act in this sphere.The court also cites the famous videogame decision from the Eighth Circuit: Interactive Digital Software Assoc. v. St. Louis County [PDF].
Violence is not Legally Obscene
Another huge win here. Washington had argued that graphic depictions are legally obscene, which would mean they have no First Amendment protection. This is not only important in this case, but in other contexts as well. For example, the FCC will be conducting a study on the pernicious effects of violence. See, Attacking Violence on Television. From the decision:
Graphic depictions of depraved acts of violence, suc as the murder, decapitation, and robbery of women in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, fall well within the more general definition of obscenity. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word "obscenity" means material that deals with sex. Only "works which depict or describe sexual conduct" are considered obscene and therefore unprotected. State statutes designed to regulate obscene material must be drafted narrowly to cover only "works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."Translation: What are you on? Drugs? Of course, the court puts it in milder terms, "The Court declines defendants' invitation to expand the narrowly-defined obscenity exception to include graphic depictions of violence."Defendants acknowledge that the Act does not regulate works that depict sexual conduct. Undaunted by the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court regarding the limited scope of materials that are subject to regulation as obscene, defendants argue that the Court should expand the definition of obscenity to include graphic portrayals of violence. No court has accepted such an argument, probably because existing case law does not support it. In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court has expressly limited "obscenity" to include only sexually-explicit materials, the historical justifications for the obscenity exception simply do not apply to depictions of violence. Sexually-explicit materials were originally excluded from the protections of the First Amendment because the prevention and punishment of lewd speech has very little, if any, impact on the free expression of ideas and government regulation of the sexually obscene has never been though to raise constitutional problems. The same cannot be said for depictions of violence: such depictions have been used in literature, art, and the media to convey important messages throughout our history, and there is no indication that such expressions have ever been excluded from the protections of the First Amendment or subject to government regulation.[citations omitted]
Is Violence Harmful to Minors and, thus, Can be Restricted?
Even if the violent videogames aren't obscene, Washington argued that the state could still restrict their sale to minors, as you can restrict the sale of pornographic material to minors. Wrong again says the Court. First, the Court notes that the cases in which material has been limited to minors is a branch of obscenity law and thus the cases they cite regarding restriction on sale of pornography to minors are inapplicable. Second the Court declares:
Defendants have not identified, and the Court has not found, any case in which a category of otherwise protected expression is kept from children because it might do them harm. Defendants' cannot prohibit the dissemination of otherwise protected speech simply because the audience consists of minors.
Strict Scrutiny Analysis: Compelling State Interest
This law is content-based regulation, and accordingly, must be reviewed under strict scrutiny analysis. The analysis consists of two parts, whether the law serves a compelling state interest and whether it is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. The claimed interest in this case is that "[t]he Legislature was motivated to curb hostile and antisocial behavior of youths, including violence and aggression toward law enforcement officers." Claiming a "compelling interest" is pretty easy to do. Showing that your regulation is actually related to that compelling interest is much harder. The court finds, under the generous summary judgement standard (where you construe things most favorably to the non-moving party), that
defendants have presented research and expert opinions from which one could reasonably infer that depictions of violence with which we are constantly bombarded in movies, television, computer games, interactive video ames, etc., have some immediate and measurable effect on the level of aggression experienced by some viewers and that the unique characteristics of video games, such as their interactive qualities, the first-person identification aspect, and the repetitive nature of the action, makes video games potentially more harmful to the psychological well-being of minors than other forms of media.....Nevertheless, the Court finds that the current state of the research cannot support the legislative determinations that underlie the Act because there has been no showing that exposure to video games that "trivialize violence against law enforcement officers" is likely to lead to actual violence against such officers. Most of the studies on which defendants rely have nothing to do with video games, and none of them is designed to test the effects of such games on the player's attitudes or behavior toward law enforcement officers.And, ya gotta love this line:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the frustrations inherent in learning a new game or console system are not responsible for any measurable increase in hostility, neither causation nor an increase in real-life aggression is proven by these studies. [footnote omitted]The Court does go on to say that many of the games are objectionable and hopes that more research is done in this area.
Strict Scrutiny Analysis: Narrowly Tailored
Even if the state has a compelling interest here, the Court found that the regulation is not narrowly tailored. The Court notes that the regulation is both over-broad and under-inclusive because it would stop games about struggles against corrupt regimes and would do nothing about games in which violence is targeted at non-law enforcement officers.
Guidance for Future Regulation
The Court does provide some pointers for a new law:
Given the nationwide, on-going dispute in this area, it is reasonable to ask whether a state may ever impose a ban on the disseminations of video games to children under 18. The answer is "probably yes" if the games contain sexually explicit images, and "maybe" if the games contain violent images, such as torture or bondages, that appeal to the prurient interest to minors. [citations omitted]The Court also provides some specific questions legislators should ask in designing a bill.
Vagueness
This may be one of the funniest aspects of the decision. First Amendment regulations that are too vague create too great a chilling effect on protected speech because no one can be sure what is legal and what isn't. Thus, the laws must be thrown out. The Court asks a number of rhetorical questions demonstrating how vague the Act actually is:
Would a game built around The Simpsons or the Looney Tunes characters be "realistic" enough to trigger the Act? Is the level of conflict represented in spoofs like the Dukes of Hazard sufficiently "aggressive?" Do the Roman centurions of Age of Empires, the enemy officers depicted in Splinter Cell, or the conquering forces of Freedom Fighters qualify as "public law enforcement officers?" When pressed at oral argument, defense counsel was unable to determine whether firefighters were "public law enforcement officers," suggesting that such issues should be determined by the state courts.Conclusion: Goodbye law, legislature try again if you want. Of course, this is a district court decision, so expect an appeal, though there is no word yet whether there will be one or not.
WIRED publishes an AP wirestory on the opposition to violence in videogames (Violent Video Games Under Attack). Why violence? Perhaps it is because not too many games feature sex. I expect this to change over the next couple of years. In any case, this article is yet more evidence that the fight for free expression for this media form is not even close to over.
Of course, the good AP editors must still be on holiday:
There is also the inescapable fact that the military uses video games to train its soldiers. A 2003 University of Rochester study found that young adults who played a lot of fast-paced video games showed better visual skills than those who did not.It is also an inescapable fact that the military uses movies, pictures and print media to train its soldiers. Why is this relevant? Is the military using the games to teach aggression? Perhaps they are using them to train for better visual skills, at least that is what the second sentence of the paragraph seems to imply, or maybe it isn't related to the first sentence at all. Who knows?
Author Evan Wright ponders the effects of video games on U.S. soldiers in the current Iraq war in his new book Generation Kill. In an endorsement that Grand Theft Auto creator Rockstar Games would probably rather not get, he quotes one U.S. soldier as saying an ambush felt just like playing the game.A truly touching anecdote. Go back to the first Gulf War and you will undoubtedly find references to the resemblance or non-resemblance of war to the movies' depiction of war. A reader-submitted review of the book on Amazon claims that the book includes a similar anecdote about another media form as well, "someone recites gangsta rap lyrics as he ecstatically sprays machine gun fire on the enemy (A very admirable piece of wartime journalism). Read the book and I'm sure you'll find other shocking examples of our culture being invoked by our soldiers in Iraq. Imagine that, our soldiers evoking our culture to describe war."It felt like I was living it when I seen the flames coming out of windows, the blown-up car in the street, guys crawling around shooting at us," the soldier says.
Still, the notion that games should be restricted is accepted elsewhere. New Zealand, Brazil, Germany and several other nations have outlawed some games.They are also restricted in countries like China, too. However, the article doesn't note some other censorship characteristics. Germany outlaws all media (including games) that depict Nazism in particular ways, something our First Amendment wouldn't allow. New Zealand's Office of Film and Literature Classification has outlawed some movies as well.
According to Xinhuanet, the Chinese government has banned a computer game for "distorting history and damaging China's sovereignty and territorial integrity" (Swedish computer game banned for harming China's sovereignty):
Moreover, "Manchuria", "West Xinjiang", and "Tibet" appeared as independent sovereign countries in the maps of the game. In addition, it even included China's Taiwan province as the territory of Japan at the beginning of the game.
via Techdirt
Fascinating story in WIRED about the addition of virtual addictive drugs in virtual worlds (Virtual Dopers Crave High Scores):
"In every game, having some danger and having the sense that there's some danger is exciting," said [Andy] Tepper [lead designer for A Tale in the Desert]. "So if you can make it so the danger to you is you, that's nirvana."
More than that, Tepper said, the game's other players love talking about it when someone falls victim to Speed of the Serpent. "It's not good for business to kill your customers, but overall it makes it a much, much more interesting world."Spoken like a true tobacco executive. Seriously, though, this is immensely interesting.
Thanks to the folks at the Entertainment Software Association, I'll be attending the E3 Expo this coming Wednesday - Friday. I plan to write some reports on the expo focusing on issues of interest to this blog. If any readers plan to attend as well, drop me a note.
Slate has an interesting piece on the increasing speed of zombies in recent movies such as 28 Days Later and the recent remake Dawn of the Dead (Dead Run - How Did Movie Zombies Get So Fast?). The author traces at least some of the inspiration to fast-paced first-person zombie shooter (aka "Survival/Horror") videogames such as Resident Evil, and not just the fact that some bad movies were adaptations of the games. Games having a cultural effect on movies. Cool.
For more traditional, slow-moving walking dead, you can download for free (and legitimately) George Romero's classic Night of the Living Dead, which is in the public domain (George Romero's Night of the Living Dead in PD; on Archive.org).
DJ Dangermouse's release of the controversial Grey Album has brought the question of reusing and remixing content to the forefront. Now, another group has taken the next logical step and released the Jay-Z Construction Set:
The Jay-Z Construction Set is a toolkit with all of the necessary software and raw material to create a new remix of Jay-Z's Black Album. It includes nine different variations on the Black Album, over 1200 clip art images, and a couple hundred meg of classic samples and breaks. The Jay-Z Construction Set is available on-line through filesharing networks and protocols such as BitTorrent.
This collection of material is certainly a violation of copyright, yet it points the way to a much richer vision for culture. I would hope that, in the near future, artists and publishers will see the value of releasing not only polished works, but the bits and parts used to create a work, including those parts that were rejected.
This is good not only for fanboy obsessives, but could serve to train people's musical ears, helping them hear the difference between different mixes of music. It would obviously be a boon to unexperienced musicians who could learn much from the choices other musicians and producers make. DJs would certainly have more opportunity to creatively add to the originals with this sort of access. And, likely, such efforts would help identify new talent.
Combine this with a system that permits "recipe" mixes as I've written about before (A History Palette for Music and The Grey Album - No Copying Necessary) and there is no danger of the artists and producers losing money. Indeed, such a model has already been quite successful in another media - videogames.
Many videogames permit players to create new content for the game engine, such as levels, maps and mods. This new content is freely distributable (at least for noncommercial purposes) and frequently incorporates content created by the original game designer along with new user-created content. This has been incredibly successful for videogame companies. The more content there is, the more popular the game becomes. The ability to create and add content creates feverish and committed communities of fans for a game. Imagine if musicians had such communities working for them.
The videogame model works for the game companies for a couple of reasons, but could also work for music companies:
1) You need to purchase the game engine for the content to be useful. In my recipe model, the mixing software that recreates the mix from the recipe would serve this role. However, it wouldn't be a significant revenue stream for the artist.
2) Often, the levels, maps and mods created by fans include content originally created by the game creator and shipped as part of the game engine. The shared levels and maps generally don't include copies of this content, since it is assumed that the downloaders already have the content and it saves on file size. In essence, many of these shared levels are what I would call "recipes" that remix the existing content in the game. Of course, there are full mods with entirely new content, but those are relatively rare (though they can be extremely popular and creative). Here is where the music recipe model can compensate the artist. In order to create the remixed version of the music, a downloader of the recipe file is going to have to have access to the original works, which, presumably, would be paid for in some manner through a legal download system.
Of course, the Jay-Z Construction Set points to an advantage for musicians that game companies don't share. Generally, game companies don't really have the luxury of shipping alternate takes on a level or unfinalized content for the game. However, when a musician releases a wide variety of takes and alternates, which were created organically, they create a much richer ore that remixers can mine. The more material you release, the more things people can do with it, which means the more people will want it. Heck, musicians might eventually ship only the construction set along with their favored recipes.
In a related note, Furdlog pointed out a brief Billboard interview with DJ Dangermouse (Danger Mouse Speaks Out On 'Grey Album')
Cardozo Law Professor Susan Crawford gives me an excuse to talk about one of my favorite topics - machinima (Susan Crawford Blog :: Machinima). For those who are unaware, machinima is a media form in which creators use pre-existing 3D engines (typically game engines, such as Unreal) to create new video works. Basically, machinima is a cheap and easy way to make animated movies.
Apparently, Crawford is planning something called "Property Law: The Video Game" and had the whole machinima concept introduced to a bunch of law professors. "Property Law: The Video Game" actually is an intriguing concept. I don't know what Crawford has planned but it will be interesting to see, as we already have property law videogames out there, in a sense, such as EverQuest. Certainly there are both implicit and explicit (not to mention intriguing) notions of property law in games like There and Second Life. Interested in more examples? Check out Virtual Worlds Review. Property Law: The Video Game is worth keeping an eye on, I think.
Back to machinima, however. Honestly, I'm not quite sure how useful this video form will be in law schools. Law is primarily and will, hopefully, remain textual for quite some time. Who wants to watch a video of a document? Sure, you could make machinima reenactments of accidents or crime scenes, but that is fairly trivial. Although ... I do think back to the final exam for one of my torts classes and remember the horrible accident involving Macy's Parade Balloons that was the hypothetical to be analyzed. It would have been very cool to have a machinima version of the accident instead of the paragraphs. Of course, professors will seldom have the desire, time or resources to create such things (many barely have the time to write the traditional page-long hypothetical).
Greetings, Citizens!
PARANOIA XP. AUGUST 2004. MONGOOSE PUBLISHING.
PARANOIA XP WILL BE FUN. FUN IS MANDATORY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Brought to you by The Computer's brilliant researchers in the R&D service firms of MNG Sector, PARANOIA XP is the entirely updated and perfected version of the darkly humorous RPG originally published by West End Games. The new edition's writers include PARANOIA co-creator Greg Costikyan, longtime paranoiac Allen Varney, and Famous Game Designer Aaron Allston. There are also devious and subtle new contributions from the original PARANOIA line editor, Ken Rolston.
Do not fileshare PARANOIA. Filesharing is Communism! Fortunately, The Computer's loyal Central Processing service firms have devised many innovative digital-rights management methods to shield you from temptation. The most promising methods manage your actual physical digits. Would you care to get your fingerprints remapped?
Citizens, do not read these words from creator Greg Costikyan, a known subversive and traitor (Rabble Rousing):
Paranoia XP, should that be what we call it, is not an attempt to bring back an old RPG for the nostalgic, or not only that. Today, distrust and fear of government is as high as it has ever been. The fear and uncertainty around digital technology is as great as it has ever been, although it has shifted; it is not, as it was in the mid-80s, so much fear of being displayed by this new thing, the desktop computer; more, it is fear that scumbags will hijack your computer for their own ends and steal your financial information and destroy your reputation; that the Powers that Be will monitor your online behavior, to sue you into submission, or to indict you as a terrorist, or a child molester. That companies like Microsoft and the record labels will limit and restrict your freedom in ways no one could previously have contemplated.
The basic themes of Paranoia--totalitarianism, fear of technology, mistrust, and loathing--are, if anything, more relevant than they were in 1984, or whenever the fuck it was we published this thing first.
.... Networking. Spammers. Scammers. Blackhat hackers. Weapons of mass destruction. Totally dysfunctional government. Paranoia XP is not an excercise in nostalgia. Paranoia XP is today. Paranoia XP is what we're living through--writ large, and excessively, and humorously.
.... We need to encompass everything that has happened with computing technology over the last twenty years: the universality of digital media, the Internet, the cultural struggle over intellectual property. Information wants to be free. But nothing is free in Alpha Complex.
Reading the PARANOIA blog is treason. Treason is punishable by summary execution. Have a nice day.
Larry Lessig has written a brief note about a California Appeals Court decision that eviscerated privacy rights in cybercafes (mandated telescreen upheld). There is a Law.com article here (Internet Cafe Ordinance Sparks War of Words). Read the decision (Thany Thuy Vo v. City of Garden Grove [PDF]). The issue that has Prof. Lessig rightfully incensed is an operational requirement for cybercafes that forces them to monitor (read over the shoulder) what people are doing on cybercafe screens, whether it is reading email, browsing the web or playing a game of Counter Strike. However, there are other major issues involved and the decision has some very important victories in it for those who care about the First Amendment.
The ordinance in the City of Garden Grove was initially passed as a typical political overreaction to some isolated violence associated with a handful of cybercafes in the city. Places where young people, particular young males, spend time are almost always suspect in the eyes of older citizens. Cybercafes attract many young males. Think this revised chorus from "The Music Man":
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in Garden Grove City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "C"
And that stands for Cyber,
That stands for Cyber.
We've surely got trouble!
Right here in Garden Grove City,
Right here!
Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones moral after school!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...
The evidence of trouble in Garden Grove City was basically anecdotal:
By memorandum of December 31, 2001, Joseph M. Polisar, the city’s chief of police, advised the city manager of the rapid growth in the number of CyberCafes operating in the city. In the space of two years, the number of these establishments had risen from three to a total of twenty. Polisar’s memorandum detailed seven incidents of criminal activity occurring in or near four different CyberCafes during the last three months of 2001. Five of the seven incidents involved gang activity. The most recent incident, occurring the day before the memorandum was written, was the murder of a 20-year-old male while he was standing in front of a CyberCafe. Polisar also reported that patrol officers were finding school aged children at these establishments during school hours, and he expressed concern about minors being able to access inappropriate and dangerous web sites. Polisar concluded: “[T]he Police Department believes that it is vital that the City enact an ordinance regulating the use of ‘Cyber Café’s [sic].’”
Heavens to Betsy! A whole seven incidents of crime! The murder was a terrible thing, but people are frequently murdered outside many other establishments as well. And my, oh, my, minors might access inappropriate dangerous web sites. Someone ought to do somethings about those libraries and schools, where children might also access inappropriate information. Seriously, read the dissent for an analysis of how much "trouble" these cybercafes really create. The original "study" by the police was a joke. For example, there are no baseline comparisons to similar business or general crime rates. If this sort of "study" were valid, one could find that any business was dangerous to the well-being of the community. Do you know how many shoplifting violations stores create?
In any case, the ordinance was passed and attacked the "problem" several different ways, with zoning and other permit requirements. The first ordinance was clearly not going to pass judicial muster, so the city revised it. The revised ordinance is what the decision considers.
One of the most important parts of the decision is that the court declares quite clearly that cybercafes enjoy First Amendment protections, much as book publishers and movie theaters:
We perceive no rationale by which CyberCafes should be accorded less protection than any of these older or more traditional businesses. As the court below aptly observed, “The targeted business is a gateway to the information super highway [—] the modern new location for information’s dissemination.” [citation omitted]
This may seem obvious (because it is), but it hasn't been obvious to many courts previously. Most of the regulations of cybercafes has been based on regulations similar to those for videogame arcades and penny arcades. Most courts have not found that videogame arcades and penny arcades have protected First Amendment status. You see, games aren't protected speech, apparently. Anyway, since cybercafes also provide access to email and the internet, regulation aimed at them does raise First Amendment issues. It would have been nice to see language about videogames being covered by the First Amendment too, this is still a significant victory.
One of the reasons is that regulation aimed at First Amendment protected businesses must beat a slightly higher standard of judicial scrutiny, as opposed to regular businesses which can be regulated almost at a whim. For example, regulations of First Amendment protected businesses must be regulated according to "objective measurement." Which doesn't mean really "objective" but does mean there can't be too much leeway for the regulators making the decision. Basically, business regulations must meet a somewhat special version of the same test used for "time, place and manner" speech restrictions.
Conditional Use Permits
Probably the most important aspect of the ordinance, from an immediate, practical point of view, was the requirement that cybercafes needed to have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP is basically a zoning regulation that lets a city veto (through a public hearing process) particular businesses that would otherwise be permitted. Obtaining a CUP can be very expensive, time-consuming and easily turned down, even after one has gone through all the trouble of applying for one. Typical CUP ordinances can be quite vague and arbitrary. For example, here is a passage on CUPs from the city of Los Angeles:
In approving any conditional use, the decision-maker must find that the proposed location will be desirable to the public convenience or welfare, is proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development of the community, will not be materially detrimental to the character of development in the immediate neighborhood, and will be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan.
What the heck does the above mean? What it means is that a CUP can basically be denied if the decision-maker (frequently the head of zoning) doesn't like your business. This can be very troublesome from a civil liberties point of view, especially when one is regulating First Amendment protected businesses. Luckily, the California Supreme Court has held that "A long line of decisions has held unconstitutional ordinances governing the issuance of licenses to conduct First Amendment activities where administrative officials were granted excessive discretion in determining whether to grant or deny the license."
Accordingly, the court completely invalidated the City of Garden Grove's CUP-based regulations as applied to cybercafes.
This is an important victory because cybercafes throughout the state are being regulated, primarily through the CUP process. Indeed, in the city of Los Angeles itself, the city is using CUPs to regulate cybercafes under an antiquated statute for "penny arcades." CUPs have been challenged by videogame arcades as violating the First Amendment previously, but have always lost.
Daytime Curfew for Minors
Here the court allows the city to deny minors access to cybercafes during school hours unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. Without going into detail here, let me make a few quick points:
Employee and Security Guard Requirements
The city requires at least one employee over the age of 18 (and an additional employee if there are more than 30 computers), as well as a security guard on Friday and Saturday evenings from 8pm to 2am. The court decided that these requirements were narrowly tailored to prevent gang violence. I believe they are correct on the age of 18 requirement. However, there was never any evidence of gang violence at more than a few of more than 20 different establishments. It hardly seems narrowly tailored that all cybercafes should be burdened with expensive, state-licensed security guards when there may only be problems at a handful of similar businesses. Moreover, the burden is substantial. Cybercafes are not major profit centers generally speaking, and the additional cost associated with more employees and security guards can mean the difference between a marginally successful business and an unsuccessful business.
Privacy
Here the decision really is Big Brother-ish. The court describes the ordinance thus:
section 8.82.020, subdivision (8) to the Garden Grove Municipal Code, ... requires CyberCafes to install a video surveillance system. The video system must be “capable of delineating on playback . . . the activity and physical features of persons or areas within the premises,” and must “cover all entrances and exit points and all interior spaces, excepting bathroom and private office areas.” “The system shall be subject to inspection by the City during business hours” and “[t]he videotape shall be maintained for a minimum period of 72 hours.”
The court concludes and the City of Garden Grove stipulates, that the information collected can only be turned over to authorities according to legal process, such as a search warrant. That is fine as far as it goes, though the ordinance could have been a little more clear on the point. However, that is not really the issue.
The issue is whether the government needs legal process to obtain certain information, but whether the government can require First Amendment protected business to create and retain such information in the first place. Yes, if information is being gathered and stored about First Amendment activities, of course the government should have to use legal process to obtain that information. But should the government be allowed to require the maintenance of such records in the first place? According to this decision, that isn't even a question.
Whatever that [privacy] interest is, it surely is not “fundamental to personal autonomy.” People don’t do things “fundamental to personal autonomy” in a public retail establishment. The dissent throws the reader off track by confusing the privacy issue with the free speech issue, asserting that CyberCafes “are the poor man’s printing press and private library.” As we have pointed out in the majority opinion, reasonable expectations of privacy in the setting of a CyberCafe are simply not present.
The court even goes so far as to say that the presence of human surveillance, such as the employee or security guard, is the same as the unblinking eye of a video camera:
Turning to what the video surveillance portion of the ordinance does say, we are not persuaded the video surveillance system affects First Amendment activity any more than does the presence of an adult employee and/or security guard.In a footnote, the court jests at any concern:
If an employee had a 72-hour photographic memory, would we make him unemployable because his presence would invade the privacy of the customers?
Apparently, this distinction is of no consequence to the Constitution:
That the video system has a 72-hour memory that may be better than the short-term memory of the average security guard, customer, or employee is not a distinction of constitutional significance on First Amendment grounds.
The court goes on to analyze the privacy rights according to the California State Constitution. The court basically finds that:
A person’s physical features are not “confidential,” nor are activities on the premises of a public retail establishment. No legally recognized informational privacy right can attach to either. Nor can it reasonably be understood that the observation of persons using a computer in a CyberCafe involves intrusion either on the making of an intimate personal decision or on the conduct of a personal activity. Plaintiffs do not explain why observation by a video camera intrudes on privacy any more than observation by employees or other patrons.
The closest analogy I can think of to show how wrong-headed this decision is, is to public telephones, which are frequently located on the premises of public retail establishments. Additionally, it happens that conversations on such public telephones might be observed (heard) by employees or other patrons (particularly those who are waiting in line to use the public telephone). Nevertheless, would it therefore be permissible to require all public telephones to be wiretapped and the recordings held for 72-hours? In Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court said wiretapping a public telephone booth was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The telephone booth in question was enclosed in glass, but I don't think the decision would have been different if the telephone had been in an open booth. I certainly don't think the Supreme Court would have allowed pre-emptive wiretapping of all public telephones.
No More Privacy - Get Used to It
Of course the decision in Katz was also based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy." But apparently, we no longer have any reasonable expectation that we are not constantly under video surveillance in all public areas.
A ‘reasonable’ expectation of privacy is an objective entitlement founded on broadly based and widely accepted community norms.” With the near ubiquitous use of video surveillance in retail establishments, at automated bank teller machines, and at road intersections, it is difficult to imagine, certainly at the preliminary injunction stage, that the customer’s expectation of privacy is reasonable under the circumstances.Wow. I'll say it again, wow. Now we have to prove that we don't expect to be constantly videotaped in public.
The Dissent
Highly recommended reading. The dissent is a blistering attack on the majority decision and I must say the judge really does seem to understand what is going on. The dissent discusses blogging, for example, and cybercafe regulation in totalitarian societies, such as China and Vietnam. If you are interested in privacy, read it.
C|Net News has published a Reuters wirestory on yet another First Amendment-violating anti-violent games law (Florida city targets computer game violence). Mayor Joe Celestin of North Miami City is apparently offended by the line "Kill the Haitians" in the videogame Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, calling the phrase "incitement" to violence.
Retailers would be fined (up to $500/day for repeat offenders) for renting or selling violent videogames to minors without parental permission (although one wonders why anyone should have access to the games is they are "incitement"). Violent videogames being games in which players kill or cause harm "to a human form." This is sooo not-Constitutional.
There is a great quote in the story:
"Have they ever watched Cartoon Network?" North Miami video store owner Bob Richardson told the Miami Herald newspaper. "It's the most violent network on television."
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was partially inspired by the classic Al Pacino movie Scarface, which had the following quote, which seems apropos.
You wanna waste my time? Okay. I call my lawyer. He's the best lawyer in Miami. He's such a good lawyer, that by tomorrow morning, you gonna be working in Alaska. So dress warm.
Terra Nova has an interesting little article on so-called "rogue servers" that host MMORPGs (Free Rogue Server Achieves Significant Population). Most, if not all (any P2P MMORPGs out there?), MMORPG are based on the client/server model, where each user has a client that talks to a centralized server. The client programs are either sold for a one-time fee or given away. The business model is based on charging subscriptions for the client programs to have access to the server. The issue of rouge servers arises when hackers reverse-engineer or obtain by other means the server software and begin running their own servers.
From a free speech and copyright overreach point of view there are serious legal and policy issues in any attempt to thwart many of these "rogue servers." See, EFF's work on the Blizzard v. BNETD case for some details on some of them.
The discussion on Terra Nova is quite interesting and there is the suggestion of franchising the running of servers. But why not go farther? Compete with these rogue servers by creating server subscriptions. That is, you can have a client and subscribe to the main server farms, or you can run your own server (for you and your friends/clan, perhaps). As a server manager, you subscribe to a service that keeps your server up-to-date with patches and new content (which you use to keep your friends happy).
Thanks to Derek Slater for pointing out an incredible decision in the Italian courts (Mod-Chippers Win in Italian DMCA Case). I'm not terribly familiar with Italian law, so I have no idea how important this decision is, but it is wonderfully drafted, though lacking the copious footnotes of a US decision. The decision, which was first noted by IP Justice, essentially defends mod-chipping of consoles vs arguments based on the European version of the DMCA as well as on copyright grounds (Italian Court Rejects First EU Copyright Directive Seizure). Read the decision (English translation by Electronic Frontiers Italy) here: Tribunal of rehearing of Bolzano. The original Italian here: Tribunale di Bolzano.
The arguments are very straight forward, mostly hinging on the rights of the consumer to make whatever private uses of the device they want. Although it is acknowledged that mod chips can be used for playing infringing versions of games, that is dismissed out of hand in light of the numerous legitimate uses enabled, such as avoiding region coding, allowing third party game developers, making backup copies and using the PlayStation as a computer.
Indeed, the court seemed most enamored of the use of consoles as full-fleged computers. For example, there is this quote (something similar will eventually arise in US courts as well):
Ironically, [it is Sony who first] had supported strongly the thesis that a playstation is a true computer and not just a game console, when asked by the EU to pay for custom duties imposed over the consoles (while computers aren’t subjected to this tax).
Ooops. Avoid those taxes, create an opening for the argument that the PlayStation is a computer (the use of which should be unrestricted). Later, the decision notes that:
But if the device [Xbox], with a few hacks, may run Linux, why in the world shouldn’t a user be free of use it in all the ways he likes?
Good stuff. Unlikely to be persuasive to a US judge, but great news for the Europeans.
Thanks to the new Second Life license, discussed here (New IP Rules for Second Life), there has been a request by a director of machinima to "film" in the world of Second Life. Permission has, of course, been granted.
Cool.
Just a quick note from The State of Play: Games, Law and Virtual Worlds.
The developers and people behind the US Army recruiting/education game America's Army are well-represented. I asked one of them whether they were developing a version of America's Army for use on the Xbox through Xbox Live. Seemed like an obvious extension of what they were doing to me. His response? Quite seriously, "I can neither confirm nor deny." I'll take that as a qualified, "yes," although it will be interesting to see how the US Army gets along with Microsoft's proprietary Xbox Live network.
One of the issues near and dear to my heart.
Games are different, because they were interactive, better, richer, more empowering, more speechy. The implication for free speech is that they are closer to the core of speech. When you defend porn, you talk about James Joyce, when you defend about Grand Theft Auto you talk about Second Life.
Is choice really speech? Exercising what is artistically relevant (such as in bricolage or collage) is generally considered speech, no problem. Recording the action from a game looks like a movie. On the other hand, a football player also makes choices that create a result that looks like a movie.
The analogy is often made to "choose your own" adventure books. The problem with video games is not simply that you make choices, but that you also have skills (hand-eye coordination). The extra element is manipulating control, which seems more like the sort of thing football players do.
What would happen if videogames did encourage violence (just an assumption)?
Regulate conduct, not speech. Regulate the joystick, not the speech.
Existing regulations target "realistic" violence, not shooting bubbles. So, can we target certain conduct tied to specific types of speech? [My initial response can be found here: Michigan State Professor Argues Against Free Speech for Videogames.]
Analogy to hate crimes, targeting some actions/conduct for harsher penalties is they are joined with certain types of speech.
Second aspect to this idea of interactivity. The availability of choices are determined by the game designer. Constraints can vary from very limiting, such as Pong, or with lots of choices, like a canvas and paint.
The point being that interactivity is not an important aspect of our arguments as to why regulation is not a good response to regulating games.
UPDATE 1240 ET
UPDATE 2 1245 ET
David Greenfield, author of the book Virtual Addiction.
He wonders why people use this technology and why it has such an impact.
Social Connections vs Social Isolation
Are games a form of communication?
What is being communicated and is it constructive?
When you're existing in a virtual game world are you the same person as you are in real-time interaction?
Inner-tainment pulls us away from real-time social interaction
Entertaining in small doses, but seems to be psychologically damaging/limiting in larger doses, over longer durations.
We are genetically predisposed to socially connect and communicate
The question is whether virtual communications are as healthy as real-time relationships
I believe all communication technologies are attempts to connect to others more efficiently, but perhaps with the cost of less depth and quality.
Does the internet affect our ability to judge and obtain social relationships
The power of the internet
A-moral: we imbue positive or negative value based on how we use or abuse it
Computer and internet technology have a positive valance associated with them
Just because the technology exists, and is profitable, doesn't mean it is harmless, and does not improbe the quality of life.
When we are gaming we are NOT doing other things (wasting time?)
Many factors contribute to the power of the net
Accessibility: Open 24-7
Intensity: The power of connecting to the world and something bigger than ourselves
Stimulation: An online High
Time Distortion: Time has not meaning when you're online
Anonymity: A virtual Mardis Gras
Disinhibition: Let it All Hang Out
Acclererated Intimacy: feel closer to people more quickly
Ease of Access: Convenience is the mother of Invention
Addiction is addiction: My brain made me do it....
All pleasurable behaviors change our mood and brain chemistry. The internet probably do this as well.
The neurotransmitter dopamine, may be common to many, if not all addictive processes.
Definitions of use, abuse, dependence and addiction (tolerance and withdrawal)
Any pleasurable behaviors (enhanced dopamine) will tend to be continued and repeated:
Anecdote: Cable company guy says people really, really upset when internet goes down (much less upset than when cable goes down)
Rothko vs. Pong: If painter Rothko's minimalism can be protected, why not Pong?
In April, Judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled that computer and video games had "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount" to free speech. So, Costikyan provides a short history of games as political speech (whole presentation will be on his website later):
The Landlord's Game
Boardgame. Patented 1904, published in 1910.
Design by Lizzie J. Magie.
The original version of "Monopoly," which is a clearly derivative product. Magie was a "Single Taxer," an adherent of the political and economic theories of Henry George. Clear didactic purpose for game.
Class Struggle in 1978 ... designed by Bertell Ollmann, a Marxist professor. The players are "workers" with one as the "capitalist."
Capital Punishment, published 1981
Get your criminals into death row or life imprisonment. Heavily pro-death penalty.
Hidden Agenda - first computer game on list, published in 1989
Clearly intended as criticism of Reagan-era policy
Blance of the Planet, published in 1990 by Chris Crawford.
Purpose is to maintina economic growth, but minimize death from pollution, the greenhouse effect, the political beliefs are quite explicit and can be changed in the game.
Violence published in 1999 by Greg Costikyan
RPG, a lot like D&D but you break into people's houses and kill them. Attack on easy reliance on violence in games.
Re-inventing America II (1999 & 2000)
Sponsored by Markle Foundation by Costikyan, examined every major federal program.
September 12th: A Toy World 2003
Gonzalo Frasca - Commentary on the war on terrorism
Only strategies, don't bomb, or bomb and kill everyone.
Under Ash (2003)
Arabic FPS, play a Palestinian Freedom Fighter working to overthrow the evil Zionest regime. The main purpose is explicitly pro-Palestinian propaganda.
www.underash.net
Movies weren't officially protected expression until 1952.
Improvisational theater is the better analogy, no one seriously believes they aren't protected by First Amendment.
Games and morality? A lot of art is directly connected to morality, touching on and playing with the conventions of morality. Similar arguments can be made
First Amendment is an insufficient ground on which to locate importance of playing. Reason is the Benkler's diagram of all the different relationships. 1st Amendment is being between state and players or state and platform producer. However, 1st Amendment doesn't get into relationship between players and platform.
Purpose is to create a democratic culture, to let people create themselves.
Deals with free speech on the internet generally, in particular, you can see how it applies to gaming.
Game designer has the clearest case for protection under the first amendment. State can regulate speech acts, if the purpose is unrelated to regulation of expression. For example, regulation of gambling. If virtual currency was convertible with real world currencty ... then you can regulate gambling in the virtual world. The same problem we see with internet gambling are present in the design of the games as well.
When one avatar murders another avatar ... usually no problem, but there is a crossover effect in the real world. There are things like communication torts,
Violation of copyright and trademark: not insulated by occuring in a game world
Defamation against person in real world, but also defamation of a avatar (falsely accused of being an eBayer) ... if the injury is serious enough, the law will intervene.
Fraud ... take money from someone by trick, but currency and items become convertable with real world money.
Destruction of property, mayhem and rape. Freedom of speech perfectly protects these virtual actions, but the problem is that as soon as you start structuring games so that they blur and cross over into the real world, then you get into what the law in interested in. Bankruptcy court takes over a game and force the game to continue until everything in the game can be sold. The is a result of the propertization of the game. If you want to create certain types of spaces, you have to avoid both commodification and real-world commodificatin. FoS will protect you to the extent that your space if about speech, but if your space is about property, then FoS won't protect you.
Weaknesses of US free speech law doesn't really protect the interest of the players as against the platform designer (not a state actor), the law protects the rights of the designer quite strongly (IP, property, designers own free speech). If you want to protect the right to play, you have to see past existing FoS doctrine. The values of the players will place limits on the FoS and contractual rights of the designers ... FoS values. Part can be gotten at by good design, some might come through laws like consumer protection (not well-structured to vinicate these rights). Must rethink how we restructure contract and freedom of expression, platform owners and players.
Q & A
Existing games (i.e., football) and the law question:
JB: You generally can't sue in sports, such as for an injury for a foul. However, if you are really, really egregious, then the law can step in (one player shoots another on the court).
What if commodification happens, against free speech wishes of game designer? Should there be 1st Amendment protection?
JB: Yes. Amount of protection may turn on the commecial interests of the specific medium.
Analogy to Company Town cases
JB: Very important to helping to determine rights. However, doctrine is withering on the vine, such as the shopping mall cases. But this is important for how we think of the rights of the game players. But even if that is the way to think about it, it might not be best to view as constitutional rights. Might be better to use ordinary legislation and code.
Body of contentious law about how 1st Amendment law applies to institutions (universities, "private" clubs).
JB: Autonomy and freedom of association also play a role here. Dale in cyberspace claim.
Some bloggers are here, I'll try to update this list as I find other posters:
LawMeme:
Second Life Allows Players to Retain In-Game IP
Michael Froomkin
Random Notes on 'The State of Play'
Virtual Worlds: A Dystopian Thought Intrudes
Abandon All Hope Ye Who Quote Here (Warning - Lawyer Humor)
How Not To Pick Up Women Online
More notes from: The State of Play: Law, Games and Virtual Worlds
Dan Hunter is talking about various property regimes in virtual worlds and their analogies to real world property law. Read his paper (Virtual Property [PDF]). He is showing a live feed of the notorious Category 1654 on eBay, where you can buy and sell avatars, swords, etc. Conclusion ... Prof. Hunter believes that there is property here and we are going to have to figure out how to deal with it.
How did Edward Castronova get involved in this issue? He thought that eventually, there would be lawsuits. Lawsuits would create a need for expert testimony. Why not him? Read his conference paper (The Right to Play [PDF]).
UPDATE 1030 ET
UPDATE 2 1035 ET
UPDATE 3 1045 ET
UPDATE 4 1100 ET
He provides a bit of a pitch for the excellent Terra Nova blog.
Of course, Castronova got the chance to provide courtroom testimony, if only at a mock trial about rights in the "Staff of Viagra" at a moot court in Las Vegas. Part of the cross examination questioned why we even care about something as silly as games.
The state has long created fictional things with real world legal ramifications, such as the fictional person known as the corporation ... which has a number of utilitarian uses, though it is fictional. But games, according to Huizinga, cannot matter. There is no moral concern, except in breaking the rules of the game. Yet games do have external meaning. The example, the Cubs fan who caught the ball and interfered in the American League championships.
What of online games? Is it play? (Role-players and happy tailors) Is it life? (Power-gamers and eBayers). The government of Korea is getting quite involved. The police, for example, are becoming somewhat willing to hear cases about people who may have stolen virtual castles, etc. How far this has gone is not clear, but Prof. Castronova is encouraging people to Korea and find out (and write papers).
Play-ness is shared cultural assumption. The lack of moral weight for games is a weak alternative to the "games matter" and "games have real-life consequences" meme. How will this conflict be resolved? By courts, perhaps.
How to protect play-ness? Assert a "right to play" as a core element of human dignity. This is somewhat eroded and there has been little political struggle over this issue. New opportunities for protecting play-ness are coming about.
Castronovas initial concept:
Interration
- Not corporation, interration
- Special legal status, for a fictional locale
- Extends the precedent of incorporation to groups of people who play
- It must meet certain requirements (no eBaying - to avoid real world consequences - such as money laundering, banking, etc.)
- In return some benefits (protection from taxation)
The results of this?
Open and closed worlds ... a lot of variety.
So we would have social worlds with different rules. Escapism is pretty important ... the ability to kill dragons and have power in a virtual world that one lacks in the actual world. He quotes from the Star Wars: Galaxies forum where people complain about not having enough power as a squad leader ("welcome to the world of the useless and ignored"). These games have real emotional importance.
UPDATE 3
Deja Vu all over again?
Is cyberspace a space? Who whould govern it?
Not a declaration of independence ... but very much a spatial metaphor undergirding a claim to institutional insularity
Who owns computer generated documents?
A new context for an old question?
What is unique about these technologies that make them different? What old discussions can we learn from.
Collaboration Platform or Game?
We must distinguish between technology and social practice.
MMORPGs provide a powerful collaboration platform
- Rich rendering of
--participants
--actions
--effect
Persistence - richly rendered asynchronicity
Developed in the contect of a particular social practice - escapist play
Offering the possibility of a new cultural form: Participatory play
Hollywood could be considered to be play ... but play as a passive, consumptive activity. Now there is the possibility of the reemergence of active participatory play, not simply consumption.
This not about online games, but crossover technologies ... this is about next year's front page interface for AOL.
UPDATE 4
The real question from Castronova's paper, is that the power of the platform will overwhelm the social practice, unless we create law that preserves game play from incursion by the real world practices, and the institutions we have developed to govern non-play interactions. [I think this is a pretty good summary]
Benkler responds, Do we need a special law? Will existing private/public law regimes suffice?
Hunter & Lastowska via Benkler
Avatars, representations of people - that "make" representations of "objects" - entail property rights of the people in representations.
- Functional, historical, and theoretical reasons to answer yes.
- But: "is it property"
Mapping the relevant relationships:
State - Platform Provider - Non-player X - Player A - Player B
Between players:
Within game (In game rules and dispute resolution - appeal to platform provider)
Without game interaction (you failed to deliver the sword you sold me on eBay)
How much freedom of contract do we allow? Boxing is a game, but we let people do things consensually that is illegal non-consensual (assault and battery).
Platform Provider and Player
Service contract
Propery Law?
- standard questions of contract (market power, ability to negotiate)
- amount of investment, emotionally, time, money (not much liquidity, perhaps)
--number portability for telephone, avatar portability?
- regulatory law; consumer protection (do you force people to permit eBaying)
Player and non-players
Standard law (property, tort, contract)
State and players
No role for law in capacity with regard to "players"
Contract and property create a private sphere
Summaries
Law can overwhelm the game if it intervenes too seriously in what is really play
The form of the platform and its social function should not be confused
It is the social function and the relative positions of power, vulnerability, and freedom of action that determine the need or rol of law
A new freedom to make together?
Not like a book or a movie, a platform for collaborative creativity
Would we conceive of a world in which JK Rowling is subject to suit for killing Harry Potter in the seventh book? No. [Great question ... people would be as greatly affected by this as about anything that happens in MMORPGs]
However, what does the fact that users "own" the storyline in MMORPGs tell us about this cultural form?
In the world of games, we somehow consider the possibility of regulation platforms to some extent, or at least that there is some moral question.
Dangers:
A lack of imagination about human social capacities will import imperfect forms of constraint on social creativity into these emerging cultural contexts.
Habits of controlled interaction bleed into real world interactions where There becomes the front end of AOL.
Do we need Law?
Technology and social structures as a workaround (such as Free software and distributed platforms)
Currently, I am in New York attending the New York Law School/Yale Law School conference on videogames and the law (The State of Play: Law, Games and Virtual Worlds).
This morning's panels is a discussion by founders of two of the most interesting MMORPGs, There.com and Second Life.
Philip Rosedale, founder and CEO of Linden Lab, creators of Second Life, had a very interesting announcement at this conference.
One of the most interesting things about Second Life is that the world is created by its users. They build and script many (if not most) of the models in the system. Second Life has been one of the leaders in such user-centered creativity.
The announcement is that there has been a change in the terms of service for Second Life. Second Life users will now be able to retain intellectual property rights in the things they develop for the MMORPG. Indeed, you will be able to actually transfer, buy and sell these copyrights in the real world. The new EULA does not yet seem to be available online yet, but this is very interesting.
UPDATE 0910 ET
There.com mentions that they have a dispute resolution process for copyright violations in their world. For example, There.com members create virtual clothing that they "sell" to other members using Therebucks. Some complaints have arisen that some sellers see other members wearing clothes they designed but did not sell. Other members of There, apparently, are selling "knock-offs" - so There.com runs a dispute resolution system. How it relates to existing copyright law is not clear.
Second Life expects, with their new EULA, that real world courts may have to resolve these issues.
UPDATE 0935 ET
In response to an excellent set of questions from copyright expert Yochai Benkler, Rosedale notes that they hope to embed Creative Commons licenses into their new system of copyright.
Prof. Benkler was skeptical about the purpose of embedding copyright law (which is a mess) into these virtual worlds ... why not enable a better system for sharing?
UPDATE 1100 ET
New Terms of Service are up.
A brief excerpt (but read the fine print):
5.3 Participant Content. Participants can create Content on Linden's servers in various forms. Linden acknowledges and agrees that, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including without limitation the limited licenses granted by you to Linden herein, you will retain any and all applicable copyright and/or other intellectual property rights with respect to any Content you create using the Service. . . .
UPDATE 1105 ET
Read the Linden Lab press release: Second Life Residents To Own Digital Creations. There is a quote from Larry Lessig:
Linden Lab has taken an important step toward recognizing the rights of content generators in Second Life. As history has continually proven, when people share in the value they create, greater value is derived for all. Linden Lab is poised for significant growth as a result of this decision.
If you are not familiar with it, you should definitely check out America's Army, the videogame produced for and about the US Army. The videogame itself is excellent and the concept, videogames that stress realism as a recruiting tool, is not exactly revolutionary, but not far from it. The game itself has been out for a year now, with a major update released just this past week. For a good overview of the game and some of the issues being raised, see this Chicago Tribune (reg. req.) article (Army targets recruits with new game). Once you've read the article ... give the game a try. It's free and if you don't want to hassle the 500MB download, get a copy on CD from your local Army recruiter.
via En Banc
UPDATE 0915 PT
MIT's Technology Review has an interesting article regarding some of the issues surrounding realistic war-based videogames (War Games). The article discusses America's Army, of course, but also September 12th. There is also quite a provocative quote from one game company:
In a world being torn apart by international conflict, one thing is on everyone’s mind as they finish watching the nightly news: 'Man, this would make a great game.'
It'll be interesting to see where Kuma Reality Games goes with their news-based game Kuma War ("From the Headlines to your PC").
Gonzalo Frasca, a game theorist and author of September 12th, thinks his ideas were somewhat misinterpreted by the article (Henry Jenkins on War Games).
According to the Iraqi blog Healing Iraq, "videogames are a huge part of [Iraqi] society" (Gamers of the world...UNITE):
Almost everyone I know, regardless of their socioeconomic status, either owns a console or has regular access to one. Almost every neighbourhood in Baghdad has what you might call a 'videogame cafe' with several consoles where people can play for about a dollar an hour.
LAN parties are also quite popular. Interesting.
via Due Diligence
The Globe and Mail has an interesting story about Sony Computer Entertainment America and some changes they've made to their upcoming game "Syphon Filter 4: The Omega Strain" (Sony deletes separatist terror attack). The game's story involves a fictional world-wide terrorist organization that intends to release a deadly biological weapon and takes place in Chechnya, Yemen, Brazil, Uganda, Myanmar, Tokyo and Toronto. All the terrorist groups are fictional, and the elements of the game set in Toronto are no different, except that the virtual terrorists are radical Quebec separatists. As in most videogames of this genre, you kill lots and lots of virtual terrorists. The idea that you would be shooting Quebeckers, however, has upset Quebec politicians and the public outcry has forced Sony to remove the offending elements of the game.
Sony is going to enjoy having set that precedent.
Yesterday, the excellent Terra Nova reports that a real life tragedy, the Southern California firestorms, has knocked out support services for two of the most popular MMORPGs - Star Wars Galaxies and EverQuest (Earth Fires Destabilize Virtual Governments). From Sony:
All Sony Online Entertainment customer service support is closed due to the wild fires raging throughout San Diego and the proximity of those fires to the SOE offices. Normal operations will resume once this local emergency is over.
In the words of Terra Nova's Edward Castronova:
In other words, a firestorm has knocked out the government that rules over 750,000 accounts. There will be no police officers on the streets tonight. If you're in the mood to do some random looting and griefing, now's the time. [Link added]
We tend to think of synthetic worlds as decentralized because the users are spread over the globe. They are still highly centralized on the production side, however, a state of affairs with clear implications for the relationship of synthetic worlds not only to Earth's weather, but to its politics as well. This time it was a fire; next time, it might be an injunction. [emphasis added]
Yep.
C-Level is a videogame art/lab based out of a basement in Los Angeles' Chinatown. This past week they debuted Endgames: Waco Resurrection, the "first chapter of Endgames, a new 3D multiplayer computer game series based on alternative utopias and apocalyptic moments." Waco is, of course, about the Branch Davidian tragedy of 1993:
Each player enters the network as a Koresh and must defend the Branch Davidian compound against internal intrigue, skeptical civilians, rival Koresh and the inexorable advance of government agents. Ensnared in the custom "Koresh skin", players are bombarded with a soundstream of government “psy-ops”, FBI negotiators, the voice of God and the persistent clamor of battle. Players voice messianic texts drawn from the book of revelation, wield a variety of weapons from the Mount Carmel cache and influence the behavior of both followers and opponents by radiating a charismatic aura.
Fascinating stuff.
Furdlog points to an article on private gaming servers in the Boston Globe (Using private servers, clubs keep serious players in, headaches out). For many PC games you can play via the internet, such as Battlefield 1942 and, of course, Counter-Strike, you need a server to act as a host for games. A server can either be public (anyone can come play), semiprivate (the server's managers can restrict entry), or private (only members can play). Playing on a public server is free, while semiprivate and private servers cost money to run (though the price can be spread among the members). Interestingly, fully private servers are less expensive to run than semiprivate servers.
But if playing on a public server is free, why pay money for a private server? The reason is that the public servers are full of lame-os, cheaters, flamers, etc. The public service is degraded and people are willing to pay money to ensure reliability and quality. Hmmmm ... sounds sort of like an argument I've heard before (How the Future of File-Sharing Might Be Like Sex).
