Keith Vaz: Videogames Should Have Health Warnings

It’s been a hectic week in the world of videogames. With the most anticipated game of the year Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 hitting the shelves to the joy of thousands of gamers, (and retailers) world wide. The game looks set to break all records as the fastest selling game in history and looks like its going to break the previous record that Grand Theft Auto 4 set a year ago.


Modern Warfare 2 had the biggest launch day sales of a videogame ever in the UK generating £64.7 Million, beating GTA 4 which in 2008 made a paltry in comparison £39.9 million.


So in these times of economic strife a product being so successful and loved by millions should bring a bit of cheer? Unfortunately not all see Modern Warfare 2’s success as a good thing. MP Keith Vaz was one of the first to lash out at the game for a level that appears early on called “No Russian”. In it you assume the role of an undercover CIA agent who has infiltrated a Russian terrorist cell who then massacre an airport full of civilians. The player is given the choice to play the level and can skip at any time however the level does play an integral part to the games plot as becomes evident later.


The scene is shocking, but should it not be seen in context? Terrorists are not known for being merciful when targeting those they feel deserve their wrath and this game reflects that. However it has reignited the controversies that have dogged the videogame industry for years.


Keith Vaz spoke in the Daily Mail of his displeasure: "I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks." Mr Vaz later raised the matter in Parliament to which he was given rather short thrift by his colleagues Tom Watson and Sion Simon.

Sion Simon the minister for Culture, Media and Sport has this to say in response to Vaz’s concerns. "The clearest recommendation of the Byron Review is that content suitable for adults should be labelled as such and sold as such, that it should be an offence to sell such content to children,"


"That's the case under current law, it will be the case with the law when it changes under the Digital Economy Bill. This game the honourable gentleman refers to is a certificate 18 game, it should not be sold to children and the government's job is to make sure that adults, clearly labelled, can get what adults should be able to, and that children are not in danger of being subjected to adult content. "

Tom Watson, a former government minster also took offence at Keith Vaz and the daily mails attack on videogames and formed the group Gamers Voice. The group has grown enormously since its inception and now stands at over 14500 members on Facebook


Keith Vaz when questioned on our latest edition said videogames should carry health warnings in a similar fashion to cigarettes. Here is the full quote here: If you look to the packaging of an 18-rated videogame, it's [the size of] a tiny 10p coin. What it should be is the same as cigarettes - it should be splashed across the front: 'This has the potential to damage your health' - and that is not happening.

But is a game really that damaging to your health? Vaz insisted he was not anti videogames and that his crusade was to protect children from harmful games but in the same instance he was also unsure what videogames his own 14 year old son played. Vaz also mentioned that parents also have a responsibility for what their children view or play but does that then mean if it is found the child has an unsuitable game should the parents be punished? Would Keith Vaz be punished under such a system depending on what his son has been playing?


There is always the argument why should adults be forced to loose out when an 18 rated game is played by a child who by law should have never have been able to get hold of the game. It doesn’t look any time soon that violent games are going to be banned but the risk of a whole medium being tarred is there.

It would certainly seem that the videogame industry has an image problem though Richard Wilson CEO of TIGA doesn’t seem to think so. But when a game such as Modern Warfare 2 is met with such a hail of controversy when many violent films are praised as art in some cases, is there a case of double standards?



For every Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 there is a Portal, for every Manhunt there is a Shadow of the Colossus. It is easy to forget that videogames are a social medium that involves family, friends and people from around the world. But is that message lost in the hysteria?

The big file-sharing hoo-ha

A lot has happened in the world of media piracy since our interview with the Swedish Pirate Party's MEP Christian Engstrom. First the music world seems to be in a state of civil war at the moment with multiple factions disagreeing upon what should happen to file-sharers once they are caught illegally downloading and sharing music. On one side you have artists such as Lily Allen and Gary Barlow supporting the recent government proposals to fine and ban persistent file-sharers from the Internet. They argue that filesharing is destroying British music and stops young bands making it in a competitive industry.

While on the other, you have Billy Bragg and Ed O'Brien of Radiohead condemning the proposals. They worry that they run the risk of alienating their fan-base with the high profile law suits that would surely follow and which have already damaged several bands reputations in the eyes of their fans after past cases. Metallica are a band who are often spoke of in hissing tones after the Napster case in 2001 which some argue they have never recovered from.

To add to the fray, three music groups decided to weigh in on the action earlier this month when the government announced it's plans in the Digital Britain report which originally came out in June 2009 with an added consultation dedicated to the file-sharing dilemma that was released in August. The Featured Artists Coalition along with the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and the Music Producers Guild all issued a joint press release stating that they "vehemently oppose" the proposals to punish file-sharers. A big turn around from the music industry's previous stance however it was not a sentiment shared by the record labels themselves who along with the film industry and trade union organisation the Creative Coalition Campaign welcomed the Digital Britain's consultation suggestions with open arms.

In the end a meeting was arranged between the artists and they came to an agreement that perhaps it was best to simply slow down serial music file-sharers Internet connection rather than disconnect them from the Internet. However there is still some unease amongst music artists that even this toned down suggestion would still have a detrimental effect on them.

Internet Service Providers have also been wary of the proposals as it would mean added work for them policing their networks and loss of revenues as they would have to cut off their own customers as well as the cost of catching file-sharers. And no one wants to risk their bread and butter. Talk Talk shared the worry of many digital rights campaigners, that cutting people off from the Internet would breach human rights legislation as well as open them up to law suits in the future as file-sharers fought back.


Although if one loser of the week had to be chosen it had to be Lily Allen as she didn't exactly come out the argument shining after it was revealed she was doing exactly what she was demanding be shut down - sharing other artist's music without permission on her website. File-sharing campaigners reacted with glee at the revelation that Allen was sharing mix tapes on her site with her own songs as well as other artists material many of whom where not associated with Allen's own record label EMI. Lily Allen has since announced she intends to give up making music in what can only be described as throwing a tantrum after being caught out. The offending mix tapes have also been taken down from the site, presumably after EMI executives had a heart attack at the possibility of getting what they wished for and a large bill from other rival record labels. A classic throwing stones in glass houses incident depending on where you stand on the whole argument

Its a tightrope for all, as the artists, record companies, film industry, ISP's and the file sharers all have a lot to lose as it all boils down to one thing: money. So the question to be asked now is. Is it time to legalise file-sharing in the UK? Should the UK have a system like Canada where personal use file-sharing is tolerated? Who knows but this fight looks set to rumble on and get uglier as time goes by.