Can't We Find Something More Productive To Do?
All the nonsense regarding Grand Theft Auto is really getting out of hand. Today, an 85-year old grandmother sued Rockstar Games because of the explicit content. Her lawyer claimed “no parent would knowingly buy an adult-only video game for their children.” Apparently, though, a parent has no problem buying a game rated “M” for a child under 17, since grandson is only 14. I stand by my previous comments: Rockstar did not fail the children, nor did they (in the words of Sen. Clinton) “game the ratings industry.” GTA carries a clear label indicating that the content is unsuitable for those under 17. Yet grandma bought the game anyway. If she is upset, it is her own fault.
Whether or not the content was included by Rockstar is not the issue. Even the hacker who released the mod stated that the content was absolutely inaccessible by a customer unless the customer took an overt act to enable it. By its very nature, this act is a violation of the End User License Agreement (and technically it is illegal). Rockstar could not force customers to view the content after the sale of the game – the customer had to choose to view it. Could Rockstar have done more to prevent this? Yes, they could have better controlled their source code during final release, but that would not have stopped a determined modder from (illegally) inserting similar code and making it available on the Internet.
Whether it is movies (anyone remember the parents who sued Disney Pictures because Johnny imitated a scene in The Program) or video games, it is the parents who have the obligation to determine what is appropriate for their own children. This situation is no different from parents who sued school boards in the 1980s when school systems banned the book “Huckleberry Finn” from libraries because of a certain derogatory word. Why, in that case, did the parents claim the responsibility for determining suitable material, and now they abrogate that right? It defies all logic to suggest that parents have the responsibility for reading material, but the government bears the responsibility for visual material.
After the release of GTA III, a 15-year old in Chicago stole 200 cars in 30 days. Check the math – that’s nearly 7 cars per night! He was found innocent because he “got the idea” from the game. Where were the parents during his joyriding spree? Rockstar did not make this kid steal cars. He actively chose to do so. To suggest Rockstar bears any responsibility for his actions shows that his parents lacked the proper maturity to be parents.
Now Congress is getting involved, as last week the House voted 355-21 for the FTC to launch an investigation. This is in stark contrast to the nearly annual vote the House takes to shield gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. It is ludicrous to argue on the one hand that a producer of one consumer good should not be responsible for the actions of its customers while simultaneously arguing that the producer of a different consumer good is responsible. There is absolutely no difference between the two – both produce a product, both have customers that use the product in a manner other than what was intended. Therefore, both must be treated the same. That is common sense. And lest someone pervert this into an argument for gun control, shielding manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from improper use of their product is the only reasonable outcome of a common sense analysis of the limits of liability.
In the present case, it baffles me how grandma can be upset. Are we to believe that she has no problem giving 14-year old Johnny a game rated “M” (meaning may be unsuitable for anyone under 17), but she does have a problem if the game is rated “AO” (meaning may not be bought by anyone under 17)? What if Johnny were 10 instead of 14? What if he were 16? Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, how does government act to enforce it? At some point grandma and the parents must be held responsible for providing the game to someone to whom it was not intended.
Whether or not the content was included by Rockstar is not the issue. Even the hacker who released the mod stated that the content was absolutely inaccessible by a customer unless the customer took an overt act to enable it. By its very nature, this act is a violation of the End User License Agreement (and technically it is illegal). Rockstar could not force customers to view the content after the sale of the game – the customer had to choose to view it. Could Rockstar have done more to prevent this? Yes, they could have better controlled their source code during final release, but that would not have stopped a determined modder from (illegally) inserting similar code and making it available on the Internet.
Whether it is movies (anyone remember the parents who sued Disney Pictures because Johnny imitated a scene in The Program) or video games, it is the parents who have the obligation to determine what is appropriate for their own children. This situation is no different from parents who sued school boards in the 1980s when school systems banned the book “Huckleberry Finn” from libraries because of a certain derogatory word. Why, in that case, did the parents claim the responsibility for determining suitable material, and now they abrogate that right? It defies all logic to suggest that parents have the responsibility for reading material, but the government bears the responsibility for visual material.
After the release of GTA III, a 15-year old in Chicago stole 200 cars in 30 days. Check the math – that’s nearly 7 cars per night! He was found innocent because he “got the idea” from the game. Where were the parents during his joyriding spree? Rockstar did not make this kid steal cars. He actively chose to do so. To suggest Rockstar bears any responsibility for his actions shows that his parents lacked the proper maturity to be parents.
Now Congress is getting involved, as last week the House voted 355-21 for the FTC to launch an investigation. This is in stark contrast to the nearly annual vote the House takes to shield gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. It is ludicrous to argue on the one hand that a producer of one consumer good should not be responsible for the actions of its customers while simultaneously arguing that the producer of a different consumer good is responsible. There is absolutely no difference between the two – both produce a product, both have customers that use the product in a manner other than what was intended. Therefore, both must be treated the same. That is common sense. And lest someone pervert this into an argument for gun control, shielding manufacturers from lawsuits stemming from improper use of their product is the only reasonable outcome of a common sense analysis of the limits of liability.
In the present case, it baffles me how grandma can be upset. Are we to believe that she has no problem giving 14-year old Johnny a game rated “M” (meaning may be unsuitable for anyone under 17), but she does have a problem if the game is rated “AO” (meaning may not be bought by anyone under 17)? What if Johnny were 10 instead of 14? What if he were 16? Where do we draw the line, and more importantly, how does government act to enforce it? At some point grandma and the parents must be held responsible for providing the game to someone to whom it was not intended.
posted by exsubdriver at 3:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home