SoylentNews

Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws?

posted by cmn32480 on Monday January 08 2018, @03:34PM   
from the 1-in-365,214,231-chance-of-getting-the-good-stuff dept.

Bill Dimm writes:

Loot boxes in video games give the player a random item, perhaps a weapon or a skin, typically in exchange for payment. Should they be viewed as a legal sweepstakes or as an illegal lottery? This video examines the legal issues and explains how loot boxes could be structured to avoid running afoul of gambling laws (which vary by state) in the U.S.. The video concludes that many current implementations of loot boxes are really illegal lotteries, and conjectures that major game companies use them anyway because the risk of being prosecuted isn't enough to dissuade them.

Previously: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors

---

Original Submission

• Protect people from selves implies Tyranny Protect people from selves implies Tyranny (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:30PM (#619560)

  You cannot protect a person from himself without constructing a Tyranny.

  At most, without a Tyranny, you can protect one person from another person (but, of course, only in a way that does not try to protect a person from himself).

  If you want a Civilized Society, you must allow a person to destroy himself.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+1
  Troll=1, Insightful=2, Total=3
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		1

• Protect dependents from their caregivers Protect dependents from their caregivers (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (2 children)

  by Pino P (4721) on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (#619576) Journal

  So let me rephrase what nanny-staters appear to really want: What should a civilized society do to protect dependents from the harmful effects of the self-destruction of their caregivers?

  Parent

  • Protect the Dependent; don't control the Abuser. (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:43PM (#619595)

    There's nothing wrong with defending a Dependent from an Abuser, or finding a Dependent new guardianship; society already does that.

    The problems occur when you try to help the Dependent by controlling the Abuser, including by forcing the Abuser to support the Dependent; if you want a civilized world, help each Dependent,^* but allow each Abuser to destroy himself and to cut himself out of society.

     
     

    ^{* Ideally, this help should not be coerced from anyone, just as it shouldn't be coerced from an Abuser. A civilized society must be built on the will of each individual, not on the will of a particular group.}

    Parent

  • Re:Protect dependents from their caregivers (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:07PM

    by khallow (3766) on Monday January 08 2018, @08:07PM (#619663) Journal

    So let me rephrase what nanny-staters appear to really want: What should a civilized society do to protect dependents from the harmful effects of the self-destruction of their caregivers?

    The problem is not in the question, it's in the definition of who is a dependent. Some go as far as to make everyone wards of the state. That has the obvious implication that none of the "dependents" should have a say, the State knows best - a classic authoritarian maneuver. The problem that your question evokes is what happens when the "civilized state" is the self-destructive caregiver? Who will rescue the dependents in that case?

    Parent