Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US)


  • TF#10 - CONSUL


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Jetah Well it does not have to comply as per 47 U.S. Code § 617 h B - is designed for multiple purposes, but is designed primarily for purposes other than using advanced communications services.
    and as per 47 U.S. Code § 617 i - The provisions of this section shall not apply to customized equipment or services that are not offered directly to the public, or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.
    It is also made quite easy thanks to 47 U.S. Code § 617 j -This section shall not be construed to require a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications or a provider of advanced communications services to make every feature and function of every device or service accessible for every disability

    So even if Fractured were to be primarily designed for communication purposes - which is not - it is a game, not a communication platform - it will still, by its very essence, be available for those with hearing disabilities.
    Although reading the US bills is pretty amusing and here I though that the European bills are made a little bit unclear just to allow bending, but the US law can be pretty much bend, stretched out and dissolved at the same time.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    Gosh regulations for games are really getting extensive these days.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Meiki
    supposedly, Anthem (the video game), doesn't have text chat because of this law. Seems if the law didn't mean video games then there wouldn't be a problem at all. And the law wouldn't have been brought up because it doesn't apply to games.

    the game is offered directly to the public (unless they mean in more of a Rest Area type).


  • TF#9 - FIRST AMBASSADOR

    @Meiki U.S. law has been, for decades, about adding as many loopholes as possible. See, if the law cannot be understood, much less in a reasonable time, it means that more lawyers are needed.

    Most of the U.S. government is lawyers, and especially families of lawyers (with children in law practice). It's a direct conflict of interests that so many people ignore.

    As to these requirements, they do actually apply. The FCC, the agency in charge of this, has stated that so long as a chat feature exists within games they will technically be under this rule. However, they have granted extensions for a number of reasons. I personally expect this to end up in the court system, as government willingness to extend the extensions has been lowering and yet the idea of having to provide features in a game can be highly impractical (such as a voice description of what is going on for the blind, which might work for something very simple but not for an online game with a pace faster than molasses in mid-winter).

    The best way forward on this one, in my opinion, is that companies will likely push back with legal holds and notices of just how ridiculous this can be, until such time as the forces of inclusion for all push it through regardless, after which several companies will arise specifically to offer 3rd party solutions to the 'problem'.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Jetah Well the wording is offered directly to public - which could be translated to - freely and openly directed to the major public for downloading. But in this case you are actually required to buy to play and so it is not offered directly, but via a payment/purchase. That's the very reason why the bill is so funny to me as a citizen used to european laws. As it is, by its very definition really full of loopholes and bendable wordings. At the same time, so far I know, Fractured is developed by an European (Italian) company and as such does not have to stricly follow any rules outside of those required by Italy and EU. In the worst case scenario that the US requires it to follow the bill, they can just cross out any communication methods in the US version of the client. Which might seem funny, but is a way around the law.



  • @Jetah said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):

    supposedly, Anthem (the video game), doesn't have text chat because of this law.

    I doubt that's true. Anthem's voip also doesn't comply with CVAA and they're keeping it in.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Meiki said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):

    @Jetah Well the wording is offered directly to public - which could be translated to - freely and openly directed to the major public for downloading. But in this case you are actually required to buy to play and so it is not offered directly, but via a payment/purchase. That's the very reason why the bill is so funny to me as a citizen used to european laws. As it is, by its very definition really full of loopholes and bendable wordings. At the same time, so far I know, Fractured is developed by an European (Italian) company and as such does not have to stricly follow any rules outside of those required by Italy and EU. In the worst case scenario that the US requires it to follow the bill, they can just cross out any communication methods in the US version of the client. Which might seem funny, but is a way around the law.

    i found it odd that the EU privacy law made a hole bunch of US companies send me an email.
    I understand Fractured/DS isn't in the US but they are serving the US and use US servers (which I assume they'll specifically have EU servers too). So i'm curious how it'll effect/affect them, if at all.

    and nearly all of US laws are written to have loopholes.


  • TF#9 - FIRST AMBASSADOR

    @Meiki For the U.S., offered to the public means that it is available for purchase, given away, or anything where you do not have a very limited private membership.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Jairone That is the problem, there is no definition in the law stating want offered to public means - i.e. you can easily interpret it the way you want to.
    But as said, Dynamight is not even situated in the US and offering the services only means that the version of the client has to follow the rules in the country it is used in. So if the worst were to come, the easiest solution is to turn these features off. But I still do not think the rules apply to games that are not primarily made for communication and that is to point, the bill applies only to HW and SW made primarily for communication.


  • TF#9 - FIRST AMBASSADOR

    @Meiki The government body that regulates this in the U.S. has stated it applies, the reason it has not been an issue to date is extensions being filed and approved (but with more and more language about the need for the industry to hurry up and figure it out).

    Further, there are such definitions in U.S. law. With regard to the laws at hand, the definition is essentially "Businesses that are open to the public, provide a service that is available to the public, or otherwise offer a product or service to the public." You just have to look up the laws that this one references... common practice in U.S. law.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    In such case let me quote: "The list of criteria specifies that devs must meet the criteria as far as is is achievable, with 'achievable' meaning within reasonable cost and effort," Indie studios definitely do not have the budget to follow the rules as they are usually glad to finish games on time and with at least some profit. Not that they currently have to worry about stuff like that. We are still a couple years before release and as such the laws may still change at a rather rapid pace.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    yeah. this law is so half assed it's horrible. I've never known a "game" to a primary means of communication. I guess if you're thinking of "The Sims" genre but Fractured, and 99% of other games wont qualify.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Jetah Yup and then you have laws like - RS 40:4.2 - which is full-down either a troll law or what the heck law. On the one hand the US law is trying to be strict about being "available" to everyone no matter how contraproductive it might be or how illogical the result may become. But on the other hand, you are free to prepare Jambalaya and offer it to the public why completely ignoring any sanitary code or best practices!!! Like who the heck comes up with a law that is a complete and utter nonsense and it poses a health threat to the general public.
    Edit: just found something even more amusing - Art 1 - Sec 4 in the Texas' bill of rights
    No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. And here I thought that sacerdotium and imperium are still a thing. 👌


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @Meiki
    that doesn't ignore sanitary code but allows people to use fires instead of propane/natural gas to cook the food. I'm guessing it's mostly in those parishes where the cajuns would cook it that way.

    but i say, if the visually impaired and blind need access to video games, then they should have access to driving.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Jetah which is where I would not agree with you, not stating visually or in other way impaired people should not have access to video games, but anything that states all games should be available to impared people is hypocritical. What comes next? Make it obligatory that every game is fun for everybody and if there is but a single person not having fun with it, you have to remake it or face a fine? Then next step would be, make the games available to the poor and economically opressed having the companies sell appropriate HW together with the game for no more than 1$?
    I really hate laws that are opressing and suppressing. If you really want someone to willingly create such games as a country you should provide some incentive to companies that will actively create such games - i.e. games available to anyone - be that person impaired, fully healthy or whatever - for example by making their taxes much lower. The best way is still always from the interested party for the interested party. I.e. as you have games made by gamers for gamers, the country should support companies which will go the way of creating games by impaired gamers for impaired gamers, as they are the only ones who really know what it is like to be impaired in the way they are. We can only hardly imagine what is it like to live the life they do and they will always know what is the best solution for those that have the same disability they have, sometimes even leading to solutions that are also very useful to the general public.
    Laws of fear and oppression are never really good. Laws of integration, inclusion and acceptance are the way to go.
    Which leads me to the idea, that the AAA gaming industry could redeem itself by the means of integration - i.e. create divisions focused on creating games while including impaired gamers and game developers as the main "players" in the team. There are definitely many such people waiting for their chance to go big and not only to think big, they just need the chance.


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    My head hurts from all these laws... 🙀

    ☕ must.. relax...


  • TF#6 - DIPLOMAT

    @Meiki said in Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) (US):

    Art 1 - Sec 4 in the Texas' bill of rights
    No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, **provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

    We don't like atheists in Texas.


  • TF#3 - ENVOY

    @Pwnstar Which is funny, because the majority of believers in Texas are Christians. But you could go to Matthew 5:44, Peter 3:8 and 3:9 and definitely Romans 14:10-19.
    Also I would say, that Christ died for everyone, as every single person, be it a sinner or a saint, is the same in the eyes of the God, as god shows no favoritism, so to forsake an atheist is to forsake the Christ and God themselves, as God did not send his only son to sacrifice himself for the good of everyone, just so someone can forsake them. The only one, who should ever forsake anyone is only God, and he will never do so, as his love is eternal.
    I think for an atheist it is easier to see the Word for what it is, and not for what the church tries to interpret it to be. That's also the very reason why there are so many different religions, as everyone tries to interpret it in their own way, although almost always forgetting that love for the others and sacrifice for the others always stood in front and on top of the teachings.
    But so I do not rant about such a controversial topic and to summ it up - if you are a Christian and believe in God, it is really strange to hear that you dislike or even hate someone. Is it that against the teachings of your Lord?


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    great this thread is not going to a religious argument?


 

Copyright © 2019 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured