Game Politics reported they received an email from Jack Thompson where he claims that a Florida bar official proposed that he be required to take a mental evaluation and serve a 91 day suspension of his law license.  I don’t know about you guys, but that’s actually not a half bad proposal in my opinion.

An official of the Florida Bar proposed late last week that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson submit to psychological testing and accept a 91-day suspension of his law license, according to an e-mail GamePolitics received from Thompson himself.

The claim has not been verified by the Florida Bar, which did not respond to our request for comment.

As GP has previously reported, Thompson is currently embroiled in a pair of federal lawsuits against the Bar (see Florida Bar Gives Jack Thompson a Wedgie Over Bully Case). The Bar has moved to hold a disciplinary hearing against Thompson based on several complaints about the anti-game attorney’s professional conduct, including video game cases involving Grand Theft Auto and Bully. A scheduled June 25th hearing was postponed. Meanwhile, mediation talks have taken place between Thompson and the Bar.

*image from Kotaku.com

According to a Slashdot article referencing Next Generation via Kotaku via some guy’s blogged translation of an ETNews article in Korea, South Korea is going  to start taxing sales of virtual world items. It’s called the Value Added Tax (VAT) and those who sell between 6 and 12 million won (US$6,500 – $13,000) in virtual goods every half year will have VAT applied automatically by the transaction’s middle-man. Any more than 12 million won every half year in business and the seller will need a business license and will pay the tax themself.

But, since many online games claim that all in-game items traded for real money belong to developers and not gamers, it’s unclear who will be required to pay the tax. The gaming industry is yet to speak up on the issue.

The Korea National Tax Service (NTS) claims that they will be able to “monitor all transactions as [real-money trading] mediators have agreed to share clients’ transaction details with the authorities. ‘NTS would be able to track all transactions for taxation of virtual items,’ Mr. Choi said. ‘This is not about defining RMT legal/illegal; we don’t see any contradictory facts to Amendment for Game Industry Promoting Law – we are not about to judge if RMT legal or not,’ he added.”

The ESRB has been in gaming news a lot lately, what with the Adults Only rating — a commercial kiss of death — it bestowed on Manhunt 2 and the recent requests to remove months-old trailers for Dark Sector. But what is the ESRB exactly, and what power does it really have? To answer those questions, I put together this beginner’s guide to the ESRB. Read the full article »

No, they didn’t hit the brightness levels with an injunction but 2 recently released video montages of the upcoming Dark Sector video game are now verboten thanks to a request from the ESRB.

Gaming Today and Filefront.com received a request from the folks behind the game to remove the “excessive or offensive content” from our host as a measure to appease the ESRB – regardless of age protections like an age gate – a term used in the industry that prompts viewers to agree to only view the content if they are of an appropriate age. (Granted its not hard to lie to get access if you’re 13) The big question is why has the trailer (which has been publicly viewable on Filefront since December 2006 and March of this year) just now become “bad” and since when does the ESRB rate trailers for products not yet released? Here is the request as we received it:

We recently received a ruling from the ESRB stating that the two officially released Dark Sector gameplay montages have been deemed to contain excessive or offensive content; and to this end are not to be available for download or viewing, regardless of being placed behind an age gate. In order to comply with this ruling, the ESRB has requested that the two Dark Sector gameplay montages be pulled immediately upon receipt of this notice and no longer made available for view by consumers.

Please be assured that this in no way effects the final gameplay content of Dark Sector, or your ability to capture direct feed footage for distribution on your site.

We (Filefront) have of course complied because we respect the right of a publisher to pull their own content but the ESRB factor makes for an interesting twist. So all of you looking to see why will have to hunt YouTube or less responsible video services to find your answers.

I was able to view the content prior to it being removed and while the montage contains some very gory acts overall they are nothing you wouldn’t see in Gears of War – a game Dark Sector is often compared to because of its bloody action – with one exception – a scene where the character guts an enemy and runs his handheld blade up into its head finally decapitating it. However the scene is dark and not glorified. There are actually 3 clips in question it seems – two gameplay footage compilations, the second one with a voice-over version as well.

Granted, in light of the recent Manhunt 2 controversy there is increased attention being paid to the industry and its products, but this is the first instance I’m aware of where the ratings board has taken a trailer and asked the publisher to remove it. What about these trailers made it worse than an AO rating and prompted the ESRB to ask the publisher to effectively ban the public from seeing it?

Is this a sign of things to come? We are attempting to reach Dark Sector’s publisher D3 Publisher for comment but we did hear back from the ESRB’s representative to get the reasoning behind this request.  Gaming Today did also manage to find the ESRB’s recommended best practice guides for trailers and age gates (or as they call them age screens). Notice that there are provisions for even Adults Only (AO) rated trailers in this recommendation.:

BEST PRACTICES TO LIMIT ACCESS OF INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT TO CHILDREN

The following guidelines for implementing the Age Screen Rule are based on best practices recommended by the Federal Trade Commission in the context of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which in certain circumstances requires age verification before collecting information online from children.

Please adhere to the following best practices to limit access of inappropriate content to children under the age of 17 (18, in the case of Adults Only) The online age gates must ask the age of the web user in a neutral manner and must employ reasonable steps to prevent users under the age of 17 (or 18) from changing their age to be older once they have initially been prevented access to the website.

2. Acceptable forms of age verification include inserting an age or date of birth field on the web page where access is provided to a demo or trailer, or collecting credit card information in connection with a transaction prior to allowing access to the demo or trailer. When asking for a user’s age or date of birth, companies must provide either an open text field in which consumers can type their age or date of birth or a drop down bar with a full selection of age or years.

3. Allowing the user to only enter their age starting with age 17 (or 18) is not permitted. In addition, categorical age verification is not permitted. This happens when a user is asked to select one of two categories (e.g., User Under 17 or Adults) or asked whether they were born “on or before,” or “after” a certain date, leading the user to think that there’s a significant difference in what they select. Similarly, check boxes, such as “Click here if you are at least 17 years old,” are not acceptable.

4. As part of the neutral age screening process, web sites cannot mention the minimum age required for access to the demo or trailer, either on the age screen page itself or in a message appearing after age information has been submitted. Language such as “Error: You must be 17 years old or older to view” is not within the spirit of the Age-Screen Rule and is only likely to encourage a child to falsify his/her age. It is recommended that a company drop a session cookie, disable the back button, or take other reasonable measures (e.g., redirecting the user to the home page, etc.) to prevent users from clicking back and re-entering an older age.

Jack Straw, Leader of the UK’s House of Commons, is being quoted as saying that game developers and publishers are not taking responsibility for content they produce.

Straw’s comments were in response to a tirade by outspoken games critic and Labour MP Keith Vaz. Vaz began his rant with the banning of Manhunt 2, and touched on the withdrawal of Law and Order: Double or Nothing, which was found to have a photo of murdered toddler James Bulger. Vaz concluded by saying, “There is a clear need for better regulation of the videogames industry. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when he expects a statement to be made… or when we may have a debate on the social responsibilities of those who make a huge amount of money out of these videogames?”

Straw, who is responsible for the British Board of Film Classification, said that the British Government would most likely be looking into violence in games further. “We do not see sufficient social responsibility and understanding by the creators and purveyors of such games. I will of course ensure that the [Prime] Minister is made fully aware of my right honourable Friend’s concerns.”

So, it sounds like Parliament is taking aim at game developers now. Sure, nothing’s been said yet, but this sort of thing is exactly what I would expect in the wake of the Manhunt 2 banning. This is the bad publicity that we can expect. Oh, joy.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) announced today both the PS2 & Wii version of Rockstar’s upcoming Manhunt 2 have been banned from being released in the UK. BBFC director David Cooke had this to say about the banning,

“Rejecting a work is a very serious action and one which we do not take lightly. Where possible we try to consider cuts or, in the case of games, modifications which remove the material which contravenes the Board’s published Guidelines. In the case of Manhunt 2 this has not been possible. Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

Although the difference should not be exaggerated the fact of the game’s unrelenting focus on stalking and brutal slaying and the sheer lack of alternative pleasures on offer to the gamer, together with the different overall narrative context, contribute towards differentiating this submission from the original Manhunt game.That work was classified ‘18’ in 2003, before the BBFC’s recent games research had been undertaken, but was already at the very top end of what the Board judged to be acceptable at that category.

Against this background, the Board’s carefully considered view is that to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”

I always had a feeling Manhunt 2 was going to kick up the brutality a notch or two from the original Manhunt, but I did not expect this kind of response at all. And with the recent news of publisher Take Two’s New York office closing, this is not something they need right now.

Who owns what you see in virtual reality? How do you claim ownership in a virtual world over anything in your possession?

Terra Nova has a new blog up exploring these questions, and trying to come up, at least in part, with an answer. Robert Bloomfield, the author of this blog, does a good job of posing a few suggestions.

Read the full article »

In a letter received by the dean of Manchester Cathedral, Sony has apologized to the Church of England for including a building that looks similar to Manchester Cathedral in Resistance: Fall of Man.

You’ll remember that I told you about the threat of legal action, and Andrew pointed out that the Church was now asking for cash as well as an apology.

In the letter (viewable here), David Reeves, President of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, says, “It was not our intention to cause offence by using a representation of Manchester Cathedral in chapter 8 of the work. If we have done so we sincerely apologise.” However, Reeves also says, “We do not accept that there is any connection between contemporary issues of 21st century Manchester and a work of science fiction in which a fictitious 1950’s Britain is under attack by aliens. We believe a comprehensive viewing of the work will make its content and context clear.” Dr. Reeves then proposes a meeting between Sony and Church officials to “demonstrate it to you at a mutually convenient time.”

Church of England officials have said they will accept the offer of this meeting, and thanked Sony for the apology. However, they also underlined their opposition to violence, and their plans to discuss their ‘outstanding demands’ (which include Sony pulling Resistance from store shelves and making a “substantial donation” to the church’s youth work) in the upcoming meeting.

Now, I’m not against religion in any way shape or form. However, in this case, it seems to me that the Church of England is using a very shaky claim of infringement to basically extort money from Sony. In case you think the Church has unshakable ground to stand on, let me quote you a portion of the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

Read the full article »

A few days ago, Ron posted about the Church of England wanting Resistance: Fall of Man off the stores of shelves, along with an apology. Today, it was reported that along with the “de-shevling” and the apology, the church wants money, too.

Although, they’re not seeking financial gain in terms of damages–they just want more money to help out children.

It will be interesting to see if they actually have a legal cause of action. I’m not quite up on my intellectual property rights law in the U.K.

But according to IMPACT, the church isn’t in a prime position to claim any rights over the building.

You might recall Andrew mentioning that Texas had passed a new bill that would allow game developers to apply for up to $250,000 in grants in Texas, if they met certain conditions, including spending a certain amount of money in the state.

There was talk when the bill passed that there would be content restrictions on who could receive the money, but at the time, they were supposedly not made part of the bill. However, Game Politics is reporting that there are indeed strings attached to this money.

Read the full article »