Feels like a bucket of bricks just fell on my forehead. Heard via GamePolitics, a new bill is being passed in Congress which would have some staggering effects on how our video games look all nice and fun-like on the retail shelf. The bill, once approved, will require Teen-rated (or higher) video game boxes to have a warning label on it, much like what they have on cigarette boxes. *facepalm*

Angered over the US ban on internet gaming, several World Trade Organization (WTO) members are seeking compensation by placing a whopping US$ 100 billion fine on the US, saying that the internet ban is discriminatory against European gaming operators.

It should be noted that the US government excluded the gambling industry from the free trade agreement, after WTO ruled against the country's ban on online gambling operators from Antigua.

"The US decision is a major threat to a rules-based international trading system," Nao Matsukata, former policy planning director from the US Trade Representative office said. He continued that the internet gambling ban marred the US's credibility in the trade industry.

Will this mean that there will be a chance that US will lift the online gambling ban? Do stay tuned.

 

A lot of folks get pretty touchy - borderline psychotic would be more apt actually - whenever it says April on the calendar. This is due to one of the many constants in the Game of Life: Taxes. Scott Sharkey of 1up decided to take some time to give a good hard look at how real-world taxation interacts with Blizzard's virtual and addictive World of Warcraft.

Sharkey notes that Taxable income includes everything from tangibles (cookies, and furnitures) to ephemeral and subjective (art pieces, concert tickets) things that you own. So by that logic, that level 70 character that you've been exploring, raiding, simulating, farming, pvp-ing the past year, that you own, isn't any more intangible than stocks. The question now is, should virtual property be taxed?

Sharkey notes that the nice part about this is that it's not our job to figure that one out. it's the problem of a certain congress">Joint Economic Committee in the US Congress. Thankfully former committee chairman Jim Saxton believes that teh internet and MMOs and all the stuff in that bag, represent an area where tech has outpaced law. He believes that messing around with it "would be a mistake." Not because it's morally wrong to do so, but because it would just be difficult on the government's part.

They could just tax hours spent playing, instead of virtual property owned, but then third-world, er, third-party leveling services sort of mess that up. Same character, not you playing. Yeah. Saxton was right. It's too mind-boggling to figure out.

The whole thing is a great read. If you feel like getting more of what Sharkey had to say feel free to head to his piece via our "read" link below.

  

Dan Miller is one cool dude. Read on, and find out why.

Business journalist H.S. Ayoub recently submitted to Internet Stock blog SeekingAlpha a write-up on his experiences in Linden Lab's Second Life. Obviously the fellow focused more on the business aspects of the metaverse. He covered the recent activities of Cisco Systems, IBM, American Apparel, and Toyota within the virtual world.

What's noteworthy though about his report is his input on government – to be specific, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress - plans to start taxing transactions taking place within Second Life.  Ayoub takes time to note Dan Miller's view on the subject. Ayoub writes:

While the flurry of activity and monetary spending can attract the attention of businesses, it can also attract the government. The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress is taking a hard look at the possibility of taxing income derived from virtual online worlds. But the general consensus is against any taxation at this time. The blogging community immediately condemned the committee's announcement last year, and Dan Miller, senior economist on the committee, agrees.

He believes that a realistic attempt at taxing virtual transactions could prove very difficult. It would place too much pressure on virtual administrators, such as Linden Lab, to keep tabs on the millions of transactions and player activities that occur every day. This, Miller believes, could slow down the impressive innovation taking place. It is not surprising to learn that the 64 year-old Miller is an avid World of Warcraft fan, and player!

Great, the great online businesses on Second Life, indirectly defended from taxation by a World of Warcraft player. The amazing teh internetz is. Amazing.

Sometime in the next few months, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress will publish the results of an ongoing investigation into the economies of World of Warcraft, Second Life, and other massively multiplayer online games.

What does this have to do with gamers? Well, this report could quite possibly determine whether or not the virtual gold that millions of online gamers earn and spend each day will incur real-world taxes.

A PC World article that we read today pegs the exchange rate for one gold piece in WoW at an unofficial rate of seven to the U.S. dollar. Second Life, on the other hand, actively encourages a real-world type of economy with an official market-driven rate of roughly 50 cents per 100 Linden dollars. Most game companies - and gamers - frown on buying gold from gold farmers, but when there's an easy way to get your hands on stuff, people will be sure to flock to it.

So if the report comes out on the side of the IRS and virtual loot is deemed to have real value since it can be sold for real money, will we be seeing the government concluding that every time a fallen virtual monster gives up its prize a taxable event has occurred? Click on the "read" link below to read the full story at PC World.

At long last, online legislators have succeeded in banning online gambling transactions. Online gambling operators are scurrying around for the next best place to put their stocks into, now that gambling shares have plunged.

You're asking, what has this got to do with gaming? Obviously, online gambling and gaming are two different worlds, but they share something in common. MMORPGs, for example, require online transactions, in order to trade valuable items in the virtual worlds. Now, fear has spread among MMO communities, since it's likely that this legislative move by the U.S. Congress might somehow in the future affect our MMO transactions as well.

Using credit cards or online payment systems for Internet betting is now a crime. In the world of online gambling, "real money" is the equivalent of valuable items traded online in MMO games. Now, we won't fall into any political argument against this Congressional ban on online gambling transactions, but we won't feel so complacent, either. For one, MMORPGs make use of online transactions too.

In time, these politicians may jump on to the gamers and developers and threaten the industry that thrives as a form of entertainment. We like what Sony did with its Station Exchange. If all MMO operators are going to follow Sony's example with its secure handling of "real money" online transactions, there would be less reasons for the Congress to spread their claws on these games and force to regulate them. We hope.

Despite their battle cries of "Smaller Government!", neo-conservative legislators are stepping up attempts to regulate the behavior of private citizens while removing all restrictions on corporate behavior. This is almost comic in a way, because, inevitably, these two issues collide.

Take, for example, the recent crusade against "violent" video games. A recent law in Louisiana would have prohibited the sale of such games in the state, but was temporarily blocked by U.S. District Judge James Brady. 

A 21 page amicus brief was filed with Baday by the website GamePolitics, on behalf of developer Ted Price of Insomniac Games. Price, who has worked extensively with the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences, argues that games are "a means of expression," no less than literature, film and other arts, and therefore is protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the brief, Price criticizes the use of the word "violence" in the Louisiana statute. He writes, " ...'violence' is an incredibly broad term... Does the 'violence' referenced in the Act include... a boxing game, a football game, a World War II game, a game featuring contact between cartoon characters... game creators (are) given the impossible task of guessing the intent of the Act's creators."

His fear is that many - if not most - games could be criminalized under this law's "definition" of "violence" - even his own topselling Ratchet and Crank, in which the "violence" takes the form cartoon-style slapstick. "The main characters in Ratchet & Clank are not human and resemble cartoon characters. The characters 'kill' each other, are 'killed' by the main character and occasional 'dismembered' in comedic ways... a retailer fearing possible fines, imprisonment and/or hard labor... may refuse to sell this game to minors."

Given the current political climate of unrestrained, no-holds-barred capitalism, it might also be appropriate to point out that Insomniac Games is indeed a Corporation, with not only the right, but the responsibility to make profits. The Louisiana law would clearly interfere with the Corporation's ability to do so - and it should be pointed out that, under the terms of the PATRIOT Act, interference with commerce is considered an act of terrorism...

At this point, I cannot help but remember a quote by the great philosopher cowboy humorist Will Rogers: "Congress! Every time they make a joke, it's a law...and every time they make a law, it's a joke."

I'm not supposed to write political content on this blog.

Too "controversial," say the editors.  In fact, this is my third version of the same article - I guess the truth I was pointing out would hurt too many feelings, or make people think about things they'd rather not think about.

Apparently, however, it's okay for Jon Stewart on the Daily Show to do this. And when Jon Stewart does it - then it's okay to bring it to you here.

The current issue is YOUR video games.  The moral, "family-values" oriented, make-em-take personal responsibility-let's-bring-freedom-and-democracy-to-the-world U.S. Congress is coming after YOUR video games.

They're some concern that they are "de-sensitizing" young people to violence. (Meanwhile,  U.S. Army is desperate to recruit soldiers for an increasingly unpopular military occupation - and I have it on good authority that violence is what warfare is all about. Am I missing something, here...?)

Sorry - I'm starting to get "political," here. That's not my place.

It is, however, Jon Stewart's place - and that of Congress, who actually speak for themselves in this little gem of a video clip. Watch... If you dare...