根据荷兰赌博法规,付费电子游戏战利品箱不是赌博?电子艺界诉堪萨斯版权局案的门柱转移

Leon Y. Xiao, Pieterjan Declerck
{"title":"根据荷兰赌博法规,付费电子游戏战利品箱不是赌博?电子艺界诉堪萨斯版权局案的门柱转移","authors":"Leon Y. Xiao, Pieterjan Declerck","doi":"10.1089/glr2.2023.0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In March 2022, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, found that loot boxes in the Ultimate Team Mode of the FIFA video games (FUT) published by Electronic Arts (EA) did not contravene Dutch gambling law, contrary to the Netherlands Gambling Authority's (Kansspelautoriteit) previous 2018 interpretation of the law and overruling a previous 2020 judgment that confirmed the Kansspelautoriteit's aforementioned interpretation. The Council of State decided that the player packs (i.e., loot boxes) in the FUT mode cannot be considered a separate game that is capable of being assessed on its own as to whether it constitutes a “game of chance” and therefore potentially contravenes gambling regulation. Instead, the overarching video game containing the loot boxes should be assessed more broadly as to whether that game constitutes a “game of chance” or a “game of skill.” We argue that the Council of State's unique approach of not considering the loot boxes separately as to whether they constitute gambling underplayed the importance of paid loot boxes as a monetization method in contemporary video games. The Council of State unsatisfyingly built its main argument on the supposed “importance” of non-paid loot boxes. Further, the Council of State's overreliance on how the so-called “majority” of players experience the video game importantly failed to account for the experiences of the small minority of high-spending players who are most at risk of potential harms and in need of consumer protection. The Council of State's interpretation of Dutch gambling law should not necessarily be relied on by other countries considering the regulation of loot boxes. Dutch legislators should consider whether this restrictive interpretation, which has made future application of gambling regulation to loot boxes highly unlikely, was intended and may require legislative amendments.1","PeriodicalId":44210,"journal":{"name":"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PAID VIDEO GAME LOOT BOXES ARE NOT GAMBLING UNDER DUTCH GAMBLING REGULATION? SHIFTING THE GOALPOST IN <i>ELECTRONIC ARTS V. KANSSPELAUTORITEIT</i>\",\"authors\":\"Leon Y. Xiao, Pieterjan Declerck\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/glr2.2023.0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In March 2022, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, found that loot boxes in the Ultimate Team Mode of the FIFA video games (FUT) published by Electronic Arts (EA) did not contravene Dutch gambling law, contrary to the Netherlands Gambling Authority's (Kansspelautoriteit) previous 2018 interpretation of the law and overruling a previous 2020 judgment that confirmed the Kansspelautoriteit's aforementioned interpretation. The Council of State decided that the player packs (i.e., loot boxes) in the FUT mode cannot be considered a separate game that is capable of being assessed on its own as to whether it constitutes a “game of chance” and therefore potentially contravenes gambling regulation. Instead, the overarching video game containing the loot boxes should be assessed more broadly as to whether that game constitutes a “game of chance” or a “game of skill.” We argue that the Council of State's unique approach of not considering the loot boxes separately as to whether they constitute gambling underplayed the importance of paid loot boxes as a monetization method in contemporary video games. The Council of State unsatisfyingly built its main argument on the supposed “importance” of non-paid loot boxes. Further, the Council of State's overreliance on how the so-called “majority” of players experience the video game importantly failed to account for the experiences of the small minority of high-spending players who are most at risk of potential harms and in need of consumer protection. The Council of State's interpretation of Dutch gambling law should not necessarily be relied on by other countries considering the regulation of loot boxes. Dutch legislators should consider whether this restrictive interpretation, which has made future application of gambling regulation to loot boxes highly unlikely, was intended and may require legislative amendments.1\",\"PeriodicalId\":44210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.0020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gaming Law Review-Economics Regulation Compliance and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/glr2.2023.0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022年3月,荷兰最高行政法院——国务委员会行政管辖部门裁定,艺电(EA)发行的《FIFA》视频游戏《FUT》终极团队模式中的战利品盒并未违反荷兰赌博法。与荷兰赌博管理局(Kansspelautoriteit)之前2018年对法律的解释相悖,并推翻了之前2020年确认Kansspelautoriteit上述解释的判决。国务委员会决定,FUT模式中的玩家包(即战利品箱)不能被视为独立的游戏,不能独立评估其是否构成“机会游戏”,因此可能违反赌博规则。相反地,我们应该更广泛地评估包含战利品盒的电子游戏是属于“机会游戏”还是“技能游戏”。我们认为,国务院没有单独考虑战利品盒是否构成赌博的独特做法,低估了付费战利品盒作为当代电子游戏中一种盈利方式的重要性。国务院不满意地将其主要论点建立在所谓的免费战利品箱的“重要性”上。此外,国务委员会过度依赖所谓的“大多数”玩家如何体验电子游戏,但却忽视了少数高消费玩家的体验,这些玩家最容易受到潜在伤害,需要消费者保护。国务委员会对荷兰赌博法的解释不应该被其他考虑对战利品箱进行监管的国家所依赖。荷兰立法者应该考虑这种限制性解释是否有意,是否需要立法修正,因为这种解释使得赌博规则在未来极不可能适用于战利品箱
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PAID VIDEO GAME LOOT BOXES ARE NOT GAMBLING UNDER DUTCH GAMBLING REGULATION? SHIFTING THE GOALPOST IN ELECTRONIC ARTS V. KANSSPELAUTORITEIT
In March 2022, the highest administrative court in the Netherlands, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, found that loot boxes in the Ultimate Team Mode of the FIFA video games (FUT) published by Electronic Arts (EA) did not contravene Dutch gambling law, contrary to the Netherlands Gambling Authority's (Kansspelautoriteit) previous 2018 interpretation of the law and overruling a previous 2020 judgment that confirmed the Kansspelautoriteit's aforementioned interpretation. The Council of State decided that the player packs (i.e., loot boxes) in the FUT mode cannot be considered a separate game that is capable of being assessed on its own as to whether it constitutes a “game of chance” and therefore potentially contravenes gambling regulation. Instead, the overarching video game containing the loot boxes should be assessed more broadly as to whether that game constitutes a “game of chance” or a “game of skill.” We argue that the Council of State's unique approach of not considering the loot boxes separately as to whether they constitute gambling underplayed the importance of paid loot boxes as a monetization method in contemporary video games. The Council of State unsatisfyingly built its main argument on the supposed “importance” of non-paid loot boxes. Further, the Council of State's overreliance on how the so-called “majority” of players experience the video game importantly failed to account for the experiences of the small minority of high-spending players who are most at risk of potential harms and in need of consumer protection. The Council of State's interpretation of Dutch gambling law should not necessarily be relied on by other countries considering the regulation of loot boxes. Dutch legislators should consider whether this restrictive interpretation, which has made future application of gambling regulation to loot boxes highly unlikely, was intended and may require legislative amendments.1
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
33.30%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
GAMBLING, CRYPTOCURRENCY, AND FINANCIAL TRADING SPONSORSHIP IN HIGH-LEVEL MEN'S SOCCER LEAGUES: AN UPDATE FOR THE 2023/2024 SEASON OVERVIEW OF MACAU'S LEGISLATION ON GAMBLING: 1961–2023 CHINESE ONLINE GAMBLING ESPORTS REGULATIONS: WHO IS TARGETED FOR CRACKDOWNS? WHY ARE THERE DOUBLE STANDARDS? U.S. FEDERAL AGENCY REJECTS POLITICAL PREDICTION MARKET UNITED STATES OF AMERICAbefore theCOMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSIONIn the Matter of the Certification by KalshiEX LLC of Derivatives Contracts with Respectto Political Control of the United States Senate and United States House of RepresentativesORDER
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1