No it isn't. I thought it was the skin maker's fault
Well, most F1 games blur out or remove the tobacco ads. But these skins are third party addons, which does not make them the responsibility of the devs!
Errr...
I really wouldn't bother. Who is gonna start smoking because they saw an advertisment on the rear wing of an LFS car? I'm no smoker but seriously... if you start smoking its gonna be for very different reasons to seing an advertisment on someone's skin.
So is *insert random p2p client* violating the law by allowing child pornography to be distributed? Is your provider violating the law by allowing you to access these illegal files? Or are YOU violating the law by turning on auto-skin downloads which may (or may not) result in the downloading of possibly illegal images?
Please, let's stick to racing online and NOT turn this into another MPAA/RIAA versus the big bad internet community.
I have a big problem with governments banning tobacco advertising (which in effect kills only the ones using it) but allowing alcohol advertising (which in effect kills the people that get hit by drunk drivers). It seems that they are more intent on keeping you from killing yourselves, than they are on keeping you from killing others. (oh, btw, standing at a busstop for 10 minutes with an average of 10 cars per minute passing and 2 busses in 10 minutes is worse for your health than smoking 5 cigarettes... Just to put things in perspective).
Does cigarette advertising actually cause people to take up smoking on anything more than the smallest scale? I think not. It might encourage people to CHANGE brands, but not start in the first place.
What causes people to start in the first place is usually curiosity combined with peer pressure. This can be at any age, from 10 to 80, peer pressure isn't confined to schools. So the way to reduce smoking is ban friends, bike sheds, the backs of shopping malls, and pikeys. Banning tobacco advertising won't make a difference the level of youth smokers, in real life or in LFS.
Nope that's not illegal as the internet has no official nationality and case history (in the UK & I understand the US) proves it is the individuals responsibility to ensure that they are receiving legal content, and where they have unwittingly received illegal content do not click through.
Having said that they're so blatantly in the dock over trademark infringement they've not got a leg to stand on ... Although I dont suppose any motor racing advertisers are going to argue over the free publicity
Actually that's kind of how I got into LFS...
While waiting on RL (anyone remember?) forums, someone spotted LFS, which got me curious... Then more and more people pressured me into trying it... Which I did, and I've been hooked ever since.
Missing the point though, they're not receiving illegal images, they're providing illegal images, which could be illegal in the country the server is hosted.
The internet is not a nation or souvereign country. It is, in effect, bound by the laws of the country in which the nodes reside. For example... It is perfectly legal to download copyrighted movies or music in my country... It is illegal to provide access to copyrighted movies or music in my country. So, I can download, but cannot upload. If I, however, go off shore into international waters, and create an island and declare that a country, and have laws allowing the uploading and downloading of these files. I could, basically, install a server there that downloads every file ever put on the p2p networks legally, and then upload those to my home computer in Holland legally... Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not breaking any laws. In fact, someone did something like that just to bypass country laws (bought up an oil rig in international waters).
What if I had a rear wing with child porn on it?what if I had a rear wing with porn on it?what if I had a rear wing with a pair of t!ts on it?
My point is that legality is not the issue here, its what the writers of the game (hopefully motivated by their customers) think is acceptable. Personally I think it is morally wrong to allow tobacco companies free advertisment in games played by children but that is my opinion.</p>
That would make for some really weird positions on the rear wing...
All jokes aside... Without getting into the legal issues with tobacco advertisements, here's what the devs say on the upload page:
Now for the moral part... You'd ban tobacco advertisement, but wouldn't mind the devs having huge FOSTER'S/McDonald's/Domino's/Martini billboards around the tracks?
Edit: Reading the devs' statement again I wonder if an image of the prophet muhammed would be considered offensive, while an image of jesus doing stuff with George W. wouldn't (I just watched that southpark episode again, yes) :P
yeah, thats kinda my point, there's a grey area in everyones oppinions. They have already stated what isn't allowed and if it were me I'd just add tobacco to that list.
I find McDonald's morally wrong. Their "produce" is manufactured in a chemical plant and is targetted at children. Their modus operandi is to gradually reduce the health of the nation, then take the profits to the shareholders (still privately owned if I recall?) who then funnel the excess into charitable donations to that blue whatever it is charity run by the I.R.A. to "free small nations from oppressive regimes". The fact that McDonalds could legally advertise in LFS and it would be considered accepteable is to me, as a peace hugging hippy with Irish blood, extremely offensive.
And you're worried about Tobacco adverts?
The world is messed up, there's far bigger things to worry about than perceived influences on children by the politically correct brigade. The facts are non-smoking parents generally produce non-smoking offspring and smoking parents generally produce smoking children.
As the child of two smokers, one of which is a chain smoker, I spent years suffering at the dinner table not allowed to leave until I was finished being choked and unable to breath with my eyes watering. In this day and age it would be considered wrong - and quite rightly - but what made me smoke was exposure to it, not bright coloured logos. What made me give up was that *shudder* advert where the fat gets rolled out of veins and it's like ... yuk!
What makes a kid demand to be taken to McDonalds is bright colours, exactly what LFS offers.
I say ban McDonalds, then worry about less serious but politically correct issues like tobacco sponsorship later.
Should we also have adverts for the NSPCC on our cars? Just incase we can reach a child being abused?
LFS is a racing game and tobacco sponsorship is still, at this time, a part of racing. It's an international community, let's be international about it.
Anyway, is the server really in a UK data centre? Probably, but are we sure? And who cares apart from a bunch of liberal left wing tree hugging dykes?
I find this post offensive, and would appreciate if this topic were added to the list of things not allowed to be discussed on this forum.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who buys/does something because they saw it on a car or billboard, etc. is weak minded, and deserves what they get. May sound harsh, but I'm sick of people placing blame on other people for their shortcomings.
Music doesn't kill people,
Games don't kill people,
Tobacco ads don't make people smoke.
Being an internet relay is not a crime, the LFS master server is merely passing on an "email". The point of origin of the skin is the author who uploaded the skin.
One could therefor argue it is the skin author who must adhere to local tobacco advertising legislation.
In 2008 (I believe, or did it get extended) it will then become illegal to broadcast tobacco advertising INTO the UK, that's a whole other issue though - but i'm not sure who that ligislation will deem to be at fault when it goes live.
Hence the big Napster lawsuit... Hence the taking down of several dozens of torrent sites around europe... Being an internet relay may very well be a crime... In the case of torrent sites, the actual data is not even on the server, it is merely a link to a file containing hashcodes. LFSW is not a relay, simply because the content is monitored. A relay means content is not stored but only relayed to its final destination. LFSW is storing the content long-term.
The point of origin of that collection of mp3s you have on your M3U list is some bloke who got hold of the CDs... That didn't make you any less of a criminal for downloading them in the UK... (I love being dutch)
(being totally unrealistic, but in theory I could package a file into a jpeg of 512x512, that would be untouched by LFSW, which could then be downloaded by a friend of mine on a private server. He could then recreate the original file, and LFSW would in fact become a filesharing hub)
Yes, and no... Yes, if history proved you right in your statements above... Unfortunately, they haven't, so there's really no argument. Precedent dictates that the downloader is at least partly responsible for the content on his/her PC. In almost every country that every had an internet lawsuit.
(you can get the non tobacco skins anyway if you want them, and just replace them filename wise)
but to be honest, if a kid that even does drugs or smokes, almost all of the time it was their own decision; and just by advertising it, i dont think it would really make it appear to be a better thing in the minds of people, because everyone knows why alot of people use tobacco products for advertising, because they are one of the largest companies in the world next to oil refining (and crabbing in alaska lol)
but.. ya, skins are only 3rd party, i dont think it would strike anyone as hey.. look.. someone has a tobacco ad on their car.. lets go see if its really great.. uh.. no; i dont know about anywhere else in the world, but as much as middle and lower school students here in the US are told about drugs, i doubt any of them honestly would want to just .. go get high on crap unless they are around the wrong friends or people.. or family at that
i could go on for hours about this, but i think i'll just stop here and vote for no; its also a freedom of speech almost (well.. freedom of public advertising.. same concept)
... Although I dont suppose any motor racing advertisers are going to argue over the free publicity