October 12, 2006
Federal District Judge Robin Cauthron has issued a preliminary injunction to block Oklahoma's video game law from taking effect on November 1st. The bill was signed into law by Gov. Brad Henry (left) in June.Although not a final ruling, the issuance of the preliminary injunction means that the law is likely to be ruled unconsititutional and that the video game industry will prevail in its suit against the statute.
Of the ruling, Bo Andersen, president of the Entertainment Merchants Association, which represents video game retailers and renters said:
"We are pleased that the federal district court... recognized that the Oklahoma law is very likely to be found to violate the First Amendment and thus should not be allowed to be enforced. Video game restriction laws have been enacted by state and local governments nine times in the past six years, and nine times the federal courts have blocked these laws from going into effect..."
Read Judge Cauthron's ruling here.
Comments
Andrew Eisen
Five articles already and it isn't even noon central.
Go have a coffee. *nods*
These DO get appealed to the Supreme Court, and the SC always denies cert, since there's no reason for them to hear it. They will probably continue to refuse to hear these cases unless one of the federal circuits ultimately rules that the law IS constitutional. Then they would take the case in order to resolve the circuit split.
Think about it, whenever this stops, the ESA is still going to have lawyers on the payroll, and they can't just sit around and do nothing, lawyers are infamous for their desire to stay busy. After all this business, what would be their next move? Logically, to get rid of Piracy. According to Snoop Doug E Doug, the number one threat to the software industry is piracy. ARGH!
So, how will they go after pirates? Shut down mod chip sellers? Nope, they'll do the easiest thing and just bring everyone who signed up for VGVN to court and then drum up some reason why we're pirates, like say, you copied the free flash game you downloaded over to your PDA...or you have a share file...something like that.
/b
I hope this gives a message to potential video game lawmakers that if it didn't work in other states, it sure as hell won't work in yours either.
@thefremen
I find it odd that they keep fighting to kill piracy givin the fact they put the games ina medium thats easily pirated to begin with(then againa true pirate can kill any protection you can put ona game even the high end 7 million number encryptions are cake)what bothers me is they go afetr folks pirateing games that are long past thier popularity and sales(like megaman X2 for example)instead of the ones really hurting the industry(ones that pirate current on the market games.
Ill admit right now yes i have a large collection of nes and snes roms(and not care if the esa reads this)not becuase i want something for nothing ,more to the fact i cannot find any of these games anywhwere for sale and the fact the companies are not making any money from these old titles(excluding capcom which pumps out the same crap for decades at a time).
If you ask me having a copyright on a single game for 20+ years is just insane not only does it block creativity and improvements but no copying of the game past its lifetime(meaning yes some games will dissapear forever like how i cant find a cart for ring king or caveman games from data east nor can i call them to buy a copy )means some will no longer be avialible to the next generation to enjoy.
In eiether case im relitively safe as are most people with roms as companies normaly go after much bigger fish(that and i have no money to really take :p)normaly folks who mass produce and sell the games.
ps:beena long time since i posted here.good to be back
I thought he penned the Louisanna game law.
- Warren Lewis
While most of these bill are pretty much the same (which explains why they keep failing), didn't this one mix things up a little by punishing the buyer?
@Siftr
No, I think you're thinking of the Lousiana bill.
You're thinking the Minnesota bill. It fined the buyer $25, and was primarily designed not to be enforcable, but to "make parents aware". Rather costly education campaign...
Ah, now I remember. Thanks for clearing that up.
I really wish I didn't have to say that so often.