When does computer game violence go too far?
Dear Tom Watson,
After a very quiet period in your political career, you have bounced right back into the headlines. As you know, yesterday saw the release of ‘Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 2′, which is expected to be the fastest selling computer game of all time. However, there have been numerous complaints about the violent content of this game, which led you to set up a Facebook group to defend the game against such accusations. While you may have a point, I think you have strayed into dangerous territory.
Painful as it is for me to quote Keith Vaz MP on this blog, he has been one of the leading critics of the new ‘Call of Duty’ (COD). He was said to be “absolutely shocked” by the violence portrayed in the game, although the game is 18-rated so that’s hardly surprising. However, there is one section in the game that has drawn particular fire, in which undercover soldiers pose as terrorists and are asked to help shoot civilians. The game’s publisher Activision said the section was “not representative of overall experience” and the game includes warning screens advising players that the scene may be upsetting. When I first heard about this, I thought the relevant section would be much ado about nothing, but on seeing the game it clearly raises some fundamental questions about computer game violence.
Now, I’m sure that the initial reaction within the blogosphere will be something along the lines of ‘Leave us alone nanny state authoritarian bastards blah blah blah games don’t kill people blah blah blah’ – all of which is reasonable, up to a point. Any government interfering with movies and computer games is likely to hit a wall of noise from their opponents. That said, there is something worthy of discussion here. I’ve always been of the opinion that watching movie violence is very much a passive process, in the sense that you simply watch a film and observe what is happening – meaning that there is a clear disconnect between the viewer and the violence. With computer games, though, the situation is different because the player must by definition be active. Mowing down civilians clearly requires you to knowingly target them and shoot them in a very graphic and cynical fashion. Is this acceptable in a computer game context? Debatable. From what I’ve read, this section of the game was not in any way necessary as far as the story line goes so I suspect that Activision added it in purely to generate publicity, but it does raise the question of how far computer games should be allowed to go.
COD is a war-based game, so one could always try to excuse violence on those grounds alone. Even if one agrees with this, does the same logic apply elsewhere? Let’s say the next version of Grand Theft Auto, a notoriouslyviolent game, involved the player having to rape the 13-year-old daughter of one of their in-game opponents in order to settle a score – is that acceptable? What about if a game required you to slit the throat of a pregnant woman and kill her unborn child as part of a mission – should we just shrug it off by saying ‘It’s only a game’? The active nature of playing computer games is, in my opinion, a tangible and crucial difference between them and watching a film, and COD treads a fine line with murdering civilians just for fun. As computer games become more and more life-like in terms of graphics, speech and gameplay, one wonders how long such issues can be put to one side on the grounds that they are not ‘real’.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“Now, I’m sure that the initial reaction within the blogosphere will be something along the lines of ‘Leave us alone nanny state authoritarian bastards blah blah blah games don’t kill people blah blah blah’ – all of which is reasonable, up to a point.”
You took the words right out of my mouth..
“Mowing down civilians clearly requires you to knowingly target them and shoot them in a very graphic and cynical fashion. Is this acceptable in a computer game context? Debatable.”
I’ve killed hundreds of thousands of ‘people’ (and ‘animals’) in computer games. I’ve never picked up a gun in real life. End of debate.
No no no. Please don’t let the tories fall for the self-important Keith Vaz/Daily Mail moral panic about videogames.
First of, videogames like this one and GTA are age restricted so should only be sold to and for the over 18s. Secondly, having played all the GTA games, there are no mandatory rapes or indeed rapes at all that I’ve seen. Vaz was previously caught lying about this kind of thing, I would point out, which is entirely in keeping with his discredited career.
Finally this panic over the terrorist section in MW2 rather misses the point. Its all about the *context* – you are playing, at that point (I am told – my copy hasn’t arrived yet!) an undercover soldier accompanying a terrorist cell. You are not compelled to shoot civilians and one review in either the Times or the Sun yesterday pointed out that this is a remarkable section since the mode of interaction with people in this style of game is limited to blowing holes in them with your gun but this section makes you wish instead for a bandage. Your ‘mercy’ is restricted by contextual operational exigency to killing the wounded if you so choose.
Is it harrowing? Well, I guess so. But its also thought provoking – not just about the game but about the world in rem which is surely the purpose of good art. But then I don’t expect the Vaz-Mail axis to know art from its elbow.
On the other hand, MW2 is expected to take north of £175m which puts it on a par with a highly successful movie. The games industry per se is one in which Britain is a significant player despite the lack of tax incentives present in countries like Canada which has actively courted the development industry. It would be instructive to look at Germany where the flap over ‘killerspiel’ – shooty games – is threatening to wreck both the retail games industry AND drive out one of the world’s most successful developers, Crytek. Is that really what we want here? Over a moral panic that the government’s own expert, Byron, failed to support?
Or is this to be another ‘ignore the experts, ignore the facts’ faith based policy moments? I hope not but would be appalled if transpired to be so.
JuliaM says it all, frankly. It’s just a video game. Nothing whatsoever for the state to be involved with. no one is forcing anyone to play it and the people buying it are capable of telling real life from fantasy.
“I hope not but would be appalled if transpired to be so.”
But not surprised, right?
This article, in the ‘Indy’ of all places, is rather good, and sheds a lot more light on that scene:“Here is a genuinely novel thing in an entertainment – a moment that asks you to make a moral decision about what you are prepared to imagine and watch. What’s more, such choices can be made to alter what subsequently happens (though I don’t know if that’s the case here). It’s as if you were to skip pages 65 to 80 of a novel and find that pages 80 to the end changed as a result.
I doubt very much that Call of Duty fulfils Del Toro’s prediction – but if it ever does come true it will be because somebody’s genuinely found a way to harness the fact that video games are books that can tell how they’re being read, and films that can’t proceed until you help them on their way. “
Julia, how did I know you’d think along those lines?
Shaun, believe me when I say that mentioning Keith Vaz on this blog forced me to scrub myself clean. However, while his past claims might have been bollocks, neither you nor Julia addressed the issue of how far computer games can go before they cross the line – raping children, murdering pregnant women etc….
LR, to be honest I disagree with the statement that those who play the game are always able to distinguish fantasy from reality. While computer games and movies tend to be nothing more than trigger for a few nutjobs out there, they can still affect a handful of people in dangerous ways – even if the vast, vast majority of people are fine.
Indeed. I have a maxim that I find quite helpful in this sort of situation:
Never bet against ’stupid’…
suppose the question is whose line? Computer games are certainly age restricted, but then you see kids playing “war” games in playgrounds all over the country – it seems to be a relatively healthy part of growing up.
So if you take any of the apparently senseless killings that seem to happen from time to time, then is there really a causal link between that and certain video games, or are they simply psychopaths who would have done it anyway.
The point about Keith Vaz is absolute – if you choose to take him seriously on anything then that is your lookout.
Reminds me of Glasgow North East on a Saturday evening.
“in my opinion”
If you wish to have a debate about the subject, bring more to the table than “your opinion”, because so far that’s all these polititions have done.
Please show us the evidence where movies or games act as the sole”triggers” to these unstable minority. If somebody is unstable enough to be triggered by a movie or game into violence, i am entirly unconvinced that they would not have been triggered by something else if not for movies or games.
Alastair, very true, but I wonder if you’d have the same opinion when computer games start including increasingly ‘unsavoury’ moments on a regular basis.
Colin, no comment!
Aron, this post is not a debate about whether video games can cause violence. As I said in the last paragraph of the letter, this is about whether computer games should be allowed free reign to include any material that they choose, regardless of how vicious, disturbing or gratuitous it is.
Authors and script writers have a far more “active” role in the creation of atrocities than gamers do. Should we condemn Shakespeare for the hideous violence he envisioned, however virtual it was? Titus Andronicus alone is far worse than Call of Duty.
When will they ‘cross the line’ or ‘go to far’?
Sigh.
Of course the censorious and authoritarian paternalist think they know better what the proles can and can’t see or read or interact with. They did it with books last century (Lady Chatterly’s Lover anyone?) then with movies and videos (1980s vid nasties are now available openly on DVD – even Clockwork Orange) and now its games. At every point, these people, of whom you are posturing as one, have lost the argument that they or someone else knows best about what people can and can’t use. As they start to lose the argument, they cry ‘won’t somebody think of the children’ as though that should be some form of trump card, even in the case of media that is clearly age restricted and not intended for kids.
Interesting angle, Madeley. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect that this was partly a publicity stunt by Activision just to generate a bit of advance press, safely in the knowledge that the moral outrage would flow nicely. Then again, if they’d included a rape scene, for example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to seriously question the developers’ intentions.
Shaun, I am all too aware of the ’somebody please think of the children’ brigade, of whom I do not consider myself to be a member, but you don’t seem concerned about the active/passive debate or the issue of computer games including more ‘extreme’ realistic content (for want of a better phrase) in future. Am I to conclude that you don’t believe there is a line that computer games could theoretically cross and that a programming free-for-all is acceptable?
Ifs and buts are dangerous – better to stick with what it actually contains.
LFAT,
I suppose it’ll get to a point where games which include child-rape etc would be so frowned upon that it would be suicide for the developer.
While I understand some of the arguments, I feel that the game tries to portray reality into the situations and that there are times in a special forces role that may require this moral dilemma. In this case, I would let it go.
However, I feel there must be much more emphasis on treating the game ratings to the same level (if not higher) than the film ratings as it tends not to be enforced so much. Maybe to enforce your view, you could argue that the ratings should be upgraded sooner, as it is an “active” issue, and that certain games may have banned ratings (as some films do)
Does killing virtual people, regardless of status, actively harm existing people without their consent? That, I feel, ought to be he arbiter of whether a games gone too far or not.
Otherwise leave it up to the consumer.
The only time we will genuinely have to worry is when technology brings us genuine AI’s (which will bring a whole new moral debate to the table), or a form of input that allows players to be actively harmed without their consent, or fatally harmed. That’s a few years off yet.
We have quite enough issues to contend in the physical world without stressing about virtual ones. After all, when retired real terrorists can go wander into the very real hotel they blew up, I figure playing one in a game is small beer.
LFAT,
You are correct in that I don’t believe that there is a difference between active and passive screen based entertainment with respect to its effects. What matters to me is the *art* of storytelling and if something is contextually merited by the subject matter.
I would argue that having harrowing content in things like shooters is actually a bloody good thing, to pardon the pun, because a lot of people in the West today are ‘armchair generals’ who think that real war is like an antiseptic videogame and then campaign for us to fight more places, more often. My view is that by highlighting the actual awfulness of armed conflict, we may advance our wider polity to a more mature position that can properly understand the consequences of using armed force.
As for rape games, you probably are unaware that there IS a sub genre of rape-based games where you have to rape girls and women. These games are openly sold in Japan and yet don’t seem to be responsible for turning 80m people into rapist maniacs.
Not my cup of tea, frankly, but I’ll be honest and say I’d rather that people carried out their fantasies in a harmless digital way rather than, say in real life. There is a related argument about the availability of porn *reducing* the prevalence of sex crime due to allowing men an easier release but this isn’t an area where I have any particular expertise so I’ll leave it at that.
Finally the point about realism is based on an understandable mis-reading of the technology which has been hyped for 10+ years. Yes graphics are getting better, arguably more realistic, and there is an industry wide drive for ‘photorealism’. However, what has been found in the real world is that as graphics get closer and closer to that standard, people are finding them more *unrealistic* because suddenly you aren’t looking at that bloke’s blocky arms and legs but noting that the light on their clothes just looks plain wrong. As the quality improves, our psychological expectations rise and suddenly game graphics fall foul of just not being realistic enough. This is a concern across industries – TV, Movies and gaming and is widely documented imaging paradox.
I have to say, that last night, on the 1am-6am talksport radio show had a teacher call in with some comments in respect of these games. The teacher said that he used one of these games (don’t know which one or what battle) to teach the pupils about WW2. The lesson was done with both the schools and the parents permission and having learnt the basics of the battle enlisted the pupils to view the battle on a Saturday morning, parents were free to come along and watch.
The game proved to be a useful tool and visualise the real images of war. Lost limbs, blood and guts and the outlandish disproportionate ganging up of troops to kill 1 soldier proved to be a pulse for thought moment into what war can be like.
The interesting thing was that the whole school/parent relationship was united in being an educational tool rather than being viewed as a gore fest.
I can only think that the caller was from another country, as the red-tops would have made much of this if it happened here.
I’d suggest they go too far if they cause harm, so can they cause harm?
Well, immersive games or VR can apparently be used to help people (links below) change behaviour, so I suppose for some people some immersive or VR content could have a disturbing or damaging effect.
Virtual Iraq
Using simulation to treat a new generation of traumatized veterans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/19/080519fa_fact_halpern?currentPage=all
Exploring the Use of Computer Games and Virtual Reality in Exposure Therapy for Fear of Driving Following a Motor Vehicle Accident
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109493103322011641
“The findings of this study suggest that VR and GR may have a useful role in the treatment of driving phobia post-accident even when co-morbid conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression are present.”
“Aron, this post is not a debate about whether video games can cause violence. As I said in the last paragraph of the letter, this is about whether computer games should be allowed free reign to include any material that they choose, regardless of how vicious, disturbing or gratuitous it is. ”
So we debating about whether something should be allowed, without discussing whether it actually has any physical negative impact.
hurrrr durrrrr.
If this was aimed at adults, I don’t think i would have much trouble with it. I have watched some extremely violent movies and been entirely unaffected by it.
However, it is not aimed at adults, and don’t let the 18 certificate fool you. A majority of these games will end up in the hands of children, a lot of them via adults who should know better but can’t say no to their little darlings.
Like my ex wife for example, who phoned me last week to ask if I could order this for our 12 year old son, (as her card was maxed out). Would you let your 12 year old play this game? You can guess my response.
I don’t know whether the playing of computer games changes the behaviour of children, but I notice that even innocuous games such as Lego Star Wars affect the behaviour of my youngest 2 children who can become much more short tempered after any prolonged use. Consequently they are only allowed short exposure.
@LFAT – “Aron, this post is not a debate about whether video games can cause violence. As I said in the last paragraph of the letter, this is about whether computer games should be allowed free reign to include any material that they choose, regardless of how vicious, disturbing or gratuitous it is.”
I would suggest, as others have, that as long as there is no harm or damage caused by these games then there is no problem. The question then becomes not an ethical one but an aesthetic and economic one. If someone were to invest that amount of effort and money into, for example, ‘Baby Raping Mother Killers’ then they’d have to be pretty certain of a market.
But again, if no harm is caused, there is no argument as to what should be allowed (bearing in mind that we are talking about adults here). So if the question is about freedom to portray things which do actually happen every day then I’d suggest that programmers should be allowed to create whatever the hell they like.
And get used to a few funny looks when trying to pitch some of these hypothetical games..
“If this was aimed at adults, I don’t think i would have much trouble with it. I have watched some extremely violent movies and been entirely unaffected by it.
However, it is not aimed at adults, and don’t let the 18 certificate fool you. A majority of these games will end up in the hands of children…”
So will porn films. And knives. And fireworks. And detergent capsules.
That’s not an excuse to bar any adult from owning these things.
(bearing in mind that we are talking about adults here)
I don’t think that the tories or labour can handle such a concept.
The solution is in your statement. You are a responsible parent who *gasp* takes responsibility. The nannies want to take the excercise of such responsibility away from you and just ban stuff for everyone just in case.
It all reminds me of when I first started playing Tomb Raider, and I didn’t know how to exit the game. The only way I knew to do it was to take Lara to a lake and drown her in it. At which point I’d be given an option to exit the game.
So for weeks and weeks, I’d play Tomb Raider and then end up deliberately and callously and cruelly ending her young life. I must’ve drowned her about 40 times before I found, with relief, that there was a much easier way to exit the game.
@Frank Davis – So frank, how often have you drowned yourself or other young girls to try and escape a situation?
I’d hazard a guess at never!
LFAT, while you may not want to discuss Aron’s point about the game causing harm, in my view, the ONLY reason to ban certain things is if they cause harm (such as drugs, dangerous toys etc)
“It all reminds me of when I first started playing Tomb Raider, and I didn’t know how to exit the game. The only way I knew to do it was to take Lara to a lake and drown her in it.”
Heh! Yeah, I did that too.
Oh, I knew how to exit. She just irritated me!
I tried drowning Angelina Jolie once but I’ve never played or seen Tomb Raider..
Try actually playing the game, then you’ll see what nonsense you’ve just written.
The most realistic warfare game ever made.
LFAT.. you should definitely see this
http://www.babelgum.com/browser.php#play/SEARCH_SIMILAR,clipID:4007716,includeClip:true,order:MOST_RELEVANT/0,4007716
LFAT, a theme seems to be notacable in that you stop responding to comments when they mostly poo poo what you are saying?
Coincidence i do hope?
[...] Opik and Douglas Carswell were separated at birth.11. Want to have a curry with Eric Pickles?12. Letters From a Tory writes to Tom Watson about violent video [...]
Lets try an objective experiment. By your tone, you’re not a gamer. I would like for you to play violent computer games for 8 hours a day, for a period of one month. If at the end of that period you are appreciably more violent, then you have a point. Otherwise please be quiet.
Also, don’t bring in ridiculous hypotheticals into the debate. Any form of media can represent any activity in this day and age. Crying out “but games could show you…” is a stupid argument.
The argument is: What are games doing now, and what impact does this have? You’ve got no evidence it has any impact, no one does. So take a step back, breathe, and let the creative industry do its thing.
“Precise, insightful and brilliantly written” ???
Says eveything about this blog, but we know delusion is common place amongst the tories.
Whoever wrote this has obviously got too much time on their hands, ITS A GAME, you see much worse on the news.
Maybe we should show this crettin a clip from sonic the hedgehog. It`ll probably warp his fragile little mind so much, he`ll pop off to a costume shop, get his blue spikey outfit and go running off looking for rings.
Surely the problem is the parents that buy these games for their children, this is where action needs to be taken. What we don’t need is the state goose-stepping in and telling adults what we can and can not play. There is a problem with violence in this country but don’t help Labour by finding them a scapegoat, a lack of personal responsibility along with the armies of do-gooders are the cause, not video games.
I agree, this topic does open a debate.
However, let me correct an error in the letter. The airport scene relevant to the story and **SPOILER** is the pivotal point in the story where you realise that the terrorists have someone on the ‘inside’ of the US Army. It is not some arbitrary ‘deleted scene’ and if you want to follow the story line then it has it’s role. There could be other less graphic ways to do it but this is a thought provoking situation. And it calls in to question as a lot of ‘art’ does, how our own government gets its way in situations we don’t know about. They presumably have operatives infiltrating terrorist groups and having to do stuff which is morally repugnant. Perhaps not on this scale but the thought is there.
I admit it wasn’t my favourite part of the game, but it has its place.
I think if there was a game to come out where you had to rape a 13 year old or kill a pregnant woman then I think people would be balanced enough to make their own decision on whether they wanted to buy that game and I suspect that if the (and politicians) didn’t kick up a fire storm then the game would not do very well at all and people would vote with their feet. The problem comes that by making all this fuss you play into the hands of the games makers because everyone goes out and buys it to see what the fuss was about and the game get publicity that money can’t buy.
In summary:
The decision whether or not to play a game should be mine not a politician’s.
The game should be marked as possibly offensive and be age rated accordingly. In this case they have gone a step further and offered to cut out the section in question if you want.
The real question in my mind is the parents who happily let underage kids play these games. They are rated this way for a reason.
It seeems to me that over the course of the past 10 years or so, numerous things including music and video games have been held to account over the disturbing and horrifying acts perpetrated by individuals all over the world. It wasn’t so long ago when Marilyn Manson was bearing the brunt of the worlds media in relation to the Columbine shootings in America. I can’t help but think it’s time to move on from using scapegoats and start trying to address the issues which have more of a contributing factor in the actions of these very few who decide to take lives in such a callous, cold, inhuman way.
Dear A. Tory
If the idea of extreme violence in computer games disturbs you, then by all means vote with your wallet, and don’t buy those games. But your bleats of “has it gone too far” are disingenous, and your straw-man arguments are pathetic. Where does your assertion that Grand Theft Auto is “notoriously violent” come from? Where is your evidence that games (or any other medium) have any impact at all on violent acts.
The only danger here is the one that lurks in your mind, a mind that can imagine savage acts of violence against children. Try reading something other than the tabloids, and try listening to people other than that idiot Vaz.
Yours sincerely
Cronan
@LFAT – Where is your evidence for the effects on violent video games in particular or any media in general? Did you even bother to read the current state of research?
Do you care? Or are you just trolling for attention?
Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games, Lawrence Kutner PhD and Cheryl K. Olson ScD
“Video Games and Real Life Agression”, Lillian Bensely and Juliet Van Eenwyk, Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 29, 2001
^ “Video Games and Health”, Mark Griffiths, British Medical Journal vol. 331, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_violence_research
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter4/appendix4bsec2.html
Good article on MW2 from the times.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6912159.ece
This just reminds me of the hysteria surrounding the video nasties of the 1980s or Mary Whitehouse “Clear up TV” campaigns and who opposed shows like Doctor Who because it was “teatime brutality for tots”.
A game is just that, a game. It is clearly labelled 18+ so if children play this it is no different than them watching an 18 rated movie, it falls to parents to be responsible. It is completely unsuitable for anyone under that age, simple as!
If such scenes as the airport shootout were featured in a film or a book we would not hear people clamouring for them to be banned, they might find it distasteful but unless it was a book/film glorifying massacring civilians it would just be a part of the story. If the action had been you dropping a bomb on the airport would anyone have made such a fuss, probably not – it’s because you’re actually seeing your actions that is causing the furore. Yet this is a 4 minute section of a 6+ hour single player story but you’re judging it on that.
So from this, I think if Grand Theft Auto or another game included a scene of brutality or rape what difference does it have to when a film or book deals with the same subject. Books such as Thirteen Reasons Why, Go Ask Alice and The Tenth Circle feature rape scenes as do films such as “The last house on the left” or “Killer bitch” (which is in production and features scenes of a disabled woman being raped and murdered). Are these acceptable because you just so happen to only be watching or reading it, why should games maintain a kiddy glove approach to hard hitting storytelling any more than any other media? I find that a well written book or well acted film is just as immersive and engrossing as a well produced video game.
Is it because gaming has always been labelled as a juvenile pursuit – maybe that was so 20 years ago but the teenage gamers of Atari/Commodore 64 days are the 30 something gamers of today. We want adult content to challenge an adult mind.
I would hope that a choice to participate in the massacre would provoke thought on the subject and hit home the weight of your choices. Or are gamer’s completely unadjusted social retards say compared to film or book buffs who think reservoir dogs was the height of film making because it features a graphic torture scene.
There’s a bizarre assumption underlying some of these objections that people playing MW2 are going to leave with the impression that war is a jolly good time for all concerned, and they’re going to want to repeat that in real life.
That doesn’t seem to be the case; while playing a game is more involving than watching a film surely that only means that the player’s reaction to the horror of war is going to be that much stronger.
The ‘video games are active whilst movies are passive’ line has been trotted out so often that no-one seems to question it’s absurdity. If watching a film is a passive experience then the director hasn’t done his job properly. It is ludicrous to say that we don’t become emotionally involved in films like ‘A Clockwork Orange’ simply because we don’t control the on screen character. Whether we sympathise with a lead character or condemn him makes us as active in a film as we are in a video game.
Computer games are an important part of people’s lives now, as you may be aware, as it offers an entertainment factor so people can enjoy themselves whilst playing these games. Games like Rock Bank, Call Of Duty and Need For Speed, games like these are very popular and you can find them for different consoles like the Playstation 3 and 2 (but not so much now), the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii. People keep coming back to the shops because of the quality of the games. What do i mean by that? Well there are certain factors that contribute to a gamers experience when playing a game and these are; Graphics, Storyline and Entertainment Value.
How can anything Keith Vaz says be taken seriously? He’s just a rentaquote self publicist, and has been since (at least) 1989. He’s also got a lot of previous concerning limits of freedom of speech. Is it any surprise that he picked the latest game launch to posture? Incidentally he promised to raise the issue in the HOC last Monday, so that looks like another broken promise Keith.
As for the unique violence of videogames, ever seen a Charles Bronson film? I saw plenty in my youth, and I’ve never even punched someone, let alone graphically mass murder strangers with a sub-machine gun (as happened in at least one of the films I saw).
Providing the software is not sold to the under-age then that should be the end of the matter.