This Wednesday, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is scheduled to review a lower court holding that declared California’s violent video game law violates the First Amendment. The impending appeal has been on our radar for a long time, first discussed by LoP correspondent Matthew Razak. Legislators and game developers have been very vocal about the case, including the oft-discussed author of the legislation, Democrat Senator Leland Yee. Senator Yee offered to repeat his factually-dubious battle cry for reporters:

This is the same technology the armed forces use to help soldiers kill the enemy… All we’re saying is, “Don’t sell it to kids.”

The law would prevent minors from purchasing games that “appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards.” Retailers violating this law would be subject to a $1000 fine.

Curiously, the bill also calls for an “18″ label to be placed on excessively violent games, but this seems to be the exact function of the current ESRB ratings.

Laws similar to California’s have been repeatedly struck down by courts around the country. But, with the notoriously wacky Ninth Circuit involved, who knows what will happen? In all honesty, I doubt this case will be any different. The link between violent video games and real-life violence in so scientifically tenuous that we shouldn’t be attempting to abridge speech because of it.

[via Mercury News]

President Bush on Monday signed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act (“PRO-IP” Act) into law. The law increases both civil and criminal penalties for copyright and trademark infringement and creates a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). This office — colloquially referred to as the “IP Czar” — will report directly to the president and is charged with protecting copyright and trademarks both domestically and internationally.

The bill originally introduced a controversial provision that allowed the Department of Justice to conduct civil suits on behalf of private copyright holders or, as Electronic Frontier Foundation spokesman Richard Esguerra said, turned Justice Department lawyers into “pro bono personal lawyers for the content industry.”

While the ESA has praised the new law as a “critical step[] that support[s] job growth and investment in the video game industry,” other groups remain skeptical. The Justice Department has expressed concerns that the newly-created “IP Czar” may undermine some of the department’s authority and advocacy group Public Knowledge expressed dismay that the bill did not introduce “something to benefit the public and artists instead of big media companies.”

After a brief hiatus, Law of Play is back in action. Unfortunately, I recently found myself doing some work that required me to briefly stop running Laws of Play. But, now that there is no fear of breaking any promise not to compete, expect plenty of new content.

Now, here are some of the stories across the Internet that you may have missed:

New York Signed a Video Game Bill into Law

Ubisoft was Sued for a Bunch of Money

Denis Dyack is Back and Claiming Epic Defrauded the Entire Industry

A Lot of Gents in the UK are Being Sued for Piracy

Matthew Sweet Wants to Sue the Makers of Guitar Hero II

Some Attorneys and Law Profs Weighed in on the ‘Video Game Defense’

Stardock Published a ‘Gamer Bill of Rights’

A Game Pirate was Sent to Prison…

…and the ESA was Ecstatic About it

The Weston & Somerset Mercury reports that parents, public officials, and a “major video games manufacturer” are pushing for a new law that will require games to be screened for photosensitivity compliance before being sold.

Support for the new law comes following an epileptic seizure triggered in a ten year old boy by Ubisoft’s Rayman Raving Rabbids on the Nintendo DS. The seizure was a result of the boy’s dormant photosensitive epilepsy, an incurable life-long condition that afflicts thousands and is triggered by bright flashing lights and colors.

While most games currently provide warnings about potential epileptic seizures as a result of play, Parliament Member John Penrose argues that these warnings are insufficient because those suffering from dormant photosensitive epilepsy do not realize that the warnings even apply to them until it is too late.

A Canadian bill designed to amended and strengthen Canada’s existing Copyright Act has met further delays. The bill, originally placed on the House of Commons order paper in December, is said to closely mimic the United State’s copyright scheme and will effect the level of control Canadian consumers have over the media and products they purchase.

Currently, recording television shows and ripping music from a compact disc for use on an MP3 player are against Canadian law, but there is no practicable enforcement mechanism. The new bill hopes to remedy this situation.

Jason Kee, director of policy with the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, has stated that the organization is in favor of the new bill. The video game industry hopes that the bill will allow Internet service providers to monitor downloads and disable the unauthorized transfer of video games and related files — an action that was previously disallowed by Canadian courts. Kee stated:

“It’s clear the ISP’s have this capacity … Similarly, they actually do have the capacity of basically disrupting particular communications, and that’s essentially the kind of activity we’d be seeking.”

Despite numerous delays, Industry Minister Jim Prentice recently stated that the bill is still a work in progress. It appears that the bill will not come to a vote before the end of the spring session of Parliament. As a result, there will not likely be any change to Canada’s aging Copyright Law before Parliament’s long summer recess.

[via CTV.ca]

In an effort to increase incentives for entertainment developers to conduct business in Georgia, The Weekly reports that Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue recently signed into law the 2008 Entertainment Industry Investment Act. The bill creates a twenty percent tax credit for qualified movie, TV, commercial, video game, and music video productions created in the state of Georgia. Qualified productions that feature an animated promotional logo for the state are then eligible for an additional ten percent tax credit.

Government officials hope the new bill will create jobs and “jump start the Georgia film industry.”

The new bill replaces the 2005 Entertainment Industry Investment Act, which used similar incentives to introduce $475 million to Georgia’s economy from the television and video game industry. Previously, the television and video game industry were responsible for only $124 million of Georgia’s economy.

While numerous states provide tax incentives for in-state entertainment production, Georgia’s law is one of the few that supports the $17.9 billion video game industry.

Time for a quick update that, due to its predictability, is dangerously close to fitting in the “not news” category:

The Library of Congress now has the full text of H.R. 5990, the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, available online. Unsurprisingly, the bill is substantively identical to H.R. 5345, a bill previously introduced by Rep. Matheson (D – UT).

It would appear that Rep. Terry (R – NE) replacing Reps. Renzi (R – AZ), Stark (D – CA), and McIntyre (D – NC) as the bill’s sole cosponsor and a pair of grammatical improvements are the only changes that have been made to the bill since it was first introduced on May 10, 2006. Reintroduction of a bill to the House is extraordinarily common and, hopefully, this bill will similarly be tabled or ignored.

Today is particularly busy here at Laws of Play, so most of our updates won’t be arriving until later this evening. In the mean time, GamePolitics has posted an exclusive interview with Rep. Lee Terry, co-sponsor of the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, which we discussed the other day.

In the GamePolitics textual summary, Rep. Terry seems to come off generally well informed on some of the issues surrounding game ratings. However, he was off-base on a few points and I still find the legislation to be misguided. Regardless, head over to GamePolitics for the full interview and stayed tuned to Laws of Play this evening and tomorrow for an onslaught of updates we have simmering on the back burner.

Variety and ABC News report that Representatives Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act” to the House floor today. The bill, H.R. 5990, was subsequently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Substantively, H.R. 5990 mandates that retailers perform ID checks on purchasers of ESRB-rated “Mature” and “Adults Only” games. Retailers caught violating the bill face a $5,000 penalty, enforceable by the FTC.

Reactions to the proposed legislation have been mixed. Chris Anderson, owner of the Alexandria, VA Play N Trade store, said that he follows the Entertainment Software Association’s rules and will not sell any M-rated games to kids under seventeen. When asked if the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would affect his business, Anderson said:

It really wouldn’t change our life at all. It’s just a way for a politician to make a name for themselves.

However, school psychologist Sunny Cote has a different opinion of the legislation:

If they make it up to the store clerks or whatever, they’re more likely to wanna push their product and sell it to get dollars. So I think federal legislation would be a good thing.

This is not the first time Rep. Matheson has proposed such a bill. In May 2006, during the second session of 109th Congress, Matheson proposed H.R. 5345, also titled the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.” This bill eventually fizzled out in the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Until the Library of Congress posts the full text of the new bill, it is unclear whether the text is substantially the same.

Although several states have had similar laws struck down on First Amendment grounds, Rep. Terry believes H.R. 5990 could pass constitutional muster:

This bill doesn’t involve itself in content or defining the standards for ‘mature’ or ‘adults only,’ … [i]t simply requires the retailer to post what the industry has defined as ‘mature’ and ‘adults only’ so that parents can know, and requires checking of identification.

In a press release issued today California State Senator Leland Yee, one of the main architects of California’s unconstitutional gaming law, has given California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger props for promising to appeal the ruling that the law is in fact unconstitutional. Yee said:

I am very pleased to see the Governor’s commitment to this issue. This is a common-sense law that empowers parents by giving them the ultimate authority over whether or not their children can play in a world of violence and murder.

On his own part the Governor had this to say:

We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions. These games are for adults, and the law I signed ensures that parents have the chance to determine which video games are appropriate for their children.

Hit the jump for more from Yee and some personnel ramblings.

Yee chimes back in with a little more rhetoric about the evils of the gaming industry:

The deliberations in this case took over a year, which shows that the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore. The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them.

The $31 billion video game industry has fought any attempt at regulation every step of the way. They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they’re again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.

The main question is why should it be the responsibility of the gaming industry to be in charge of the well-being of anyone? Parents should look at the games they’re children have purchased and see the clearly marked rating on the front. That being said a retailer would do well, and some already do, to enforce the selling of M-Rated games to minors. Both of these options are ways private citizens and companies can easily do away with any controversy over this. It gets fuzzy when you enforce the sale of violent games to people by law, which sounds like a restriction of free speech by the government to me. This is especially so with this law, where pretty much any game featuring death or killing would be illegal to sell to a minor, sounds like something that could be easily twisted by people who are anti-gaming.

If the government is going to regulate games, which it shouldn’t need to, it needs to create a law that does it fairly, not through some knee jerk reaction to popular opinion. As for the multitude of studies showing that games cause violence a quick search with Google shows a plethora of studies and news reports both against and for. Yee must have forgotten to read the former.