NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes a Tax Break for Developers

March 11, 2009 -

An interesting legislative turnabout is underway in North Carolina.

A state senator who twice in the past introduced bills designed to restrict the sales of mature-themed games to minors has now proposed that the state offer financial incentives to game developers.

Yesterday, Sen. Julia Boseman (D) introduced S525, a new bill that would permit game developers to take advantage of a tax credit of up to 15% for qualifying expenses.

While the measure does not restrict M-rated games as did an earlier proposal in Oklahoma, it does preclude material which qualifies as "obscene" under North Carolina law:

Limitation. – No credit is allowed under this section for qualifying expenses with respect to digital interactive media that contain material that is obscene, as defined in G.S. 14-190.1.

In past sessions, Sen. Boseman introduced bills designed to restrict sales of mature games to minors in 2005 and 2007. Both measures failed to pass.


Comments

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes a

I don't believe her stance here is inherently hypocritical. The view that violent video games shouldn't be sold to minors isn't incompatible with generally encouraging game development within your state. Even E-rated games are damn good for your economy.

www.gameslaw.net

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

I remember that after I commented yesterday about politicians abondoning their stated principles due to the bad economy, somebody, after calling me a troll, asked me what I based my assertion on. I was pissed, so I didn't answer them then. I would just like to say now, case in fucking point.

---------------------------------

Internet troll > internet paladin

-------------------------------------------------------- Believe in something! Even if it's wrong, believe in it! GET OFF MY PHONE! -Glenn Beck

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

Considering obsene material is already (by definition) illegal, what is the point of exluding it?  That is a bit like saying 'we will give tax breaks to photography studios as long as they don't make kiddy porn' or 'we will give tax breaks to horror movie production as long as actors are not actually murdered for the film'.

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

It makes sense to add the exclusion. It may be illegal to sell the content, but if they do not specify that producers of said content are inelligible from the beginning, they cannot legally deny incentives to producers of such content.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

So wait, they're allowed to produce it but not allowed to sell it? o_o

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

Most states have laws regulating the production of obscene material. I just felt that it is necessary to include those provisions.

In Oklahoma the movie tax incentives apply for all movie productions except for those that fall under illegal or obscene standards as defined by law.

It makes sense to not want to be seen as supporting illegal activity in any way.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

So, could one still qualify for a tax break if one produced legal pornography?

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

It depends on your definition of "pornography". Nudie pics aren't legally obscene, but they could be seen as pornographic....
Speaking to the rest of these comments, obscenity is not in and of itself illegal--although it may be regulated. A state may never prohibit ownership of obscene material by adults (with exceptions like child porn), but it may drastically limit production, distribution, etc.

www.gameslaw.net

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

AS long as it is not considered obscene under the states obscenity laws and meets all other requirements, yes.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

Ah, that answers my question, "what is obscene?" The illegal stuff, okay. What a silly addition.

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes ...

Inconsistant is right. Question is: Would you call it hypocrisy, or repentence?

Re: NC Senator Failed at Legislating Content, Now Proposes a

Actually, her prior legislations didn't "fail".  They were just never given the unneccesary time to be looked over and she knew there were more important things on the agenda, so they were never pushed for.

Also, remember that a certain someone claimed to have drafted at least the first version of those prior bills.  And, who knows, maybe they did the second but seeing such bills fail, didn't want to own up to it.

Also, the restrictions on this new bill seems out of place with her stance on similar incentives for the movie industry in NC.  Another senator opposed tax incentives for development of movies that contained certain content and Senator Boseman opposed those restrictions.  Yet, here, she supports them.  I emailed her some time back asking her about the interview in which she opposed restrictions to the movie industry incentives, but hadn't heard back.  Perhaps this is why. 

Her inconsistant stance is rather mind numbing.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician