So it continues; after the court decided that the game (GTA; what else) was not a factor in the shooting of two police officers there is still a civil case going on to take any company (pretty much involved in any stage of the game) involved in the game getting into the shooter's hands. I find it interesting that:
The makers, distributors, and retailers of that murder simulator equipped Moore to kill as surely as if they had handed him the gun to do it.Lawyer vows to prove link between video games and murder, The Register
If that is the case then why not take anyone involved in the production and distribution of the firearm used to court. Furthermore I'd argue that if you handed someone a gun and they then went on a killing spree then they have made an active choice to do that rather than to, as most people would, put the gun down. The game was not a tool; the person was mentally unstable to begin with. If you want to find a tool why not question the accessibly of a firearms to the population?
I also find it strange that they aren't just going after Take Two Interactive but also the entire distribution chain. I was disappointed to see that the trucking company that distributed the game from the warehouse to the shops wasn't included on the list. I'm also confused as to how you can sue Walmart and Gamestop for the game's distribution unless it was a Gamestop located within Walmart; I guess.
I'm not sure what is going to come out of this; I'm very interested to see.
2 comments:
It seems fairly obvious to me what will happen. A load of lawyers will get a bit richer and the world will get no safer. It may get a little less fun.
It's a classic attempt to extend Donoghue v Stevenson. That case broke ground by saying that the person who drank half a bottle of ginger beer then found a rotting snail in the remainder could sue the manufacturer (despite no contract existing between them) as opposed to the vendor (who was clearly not negligent as they could not have prevented the whole snail-bottle thing).
Post a Comment