GeekSpazzStudy - Video Game Playing and Gambling-Related Problems: Is there a Connection?

Video Game Playing and Gambling-Related Problems: Is there a Connection?

Research has begun to focus on how gambling impacts adolescents (e.g., Delfabbro, Lahn, & Grabosky, 2005; Welte, Barnes, Tidwell, & Hoffman, 2009). However, researchers rarely have studied the correlation between adolescent video game playing and disordered gambling behavior. This week’s WAGER reviews a study (Delfabbro, King, Lambos, & Puglies, 2009) that examined associations between gambling-related problems and types and frequency of video game play among Australian adolescents.
Methods

• Participants (N= 2,669) were students between the ages 12 and 17 attending six secondary schools (i.e., grades 8-13) in South Australia.
  
  • Delfabbro et al. purposely sampled schools; they selected four schools to obtain representation from each of the four major statistical districts in the metropolitan area and selected two from major regional centers.
  • All students who were present on the survey’s administration day completed the survey with the exception of students who were withdrawn by parents (i.e., withdrawers). The absentee rate reported by the schools was approximately 10%; the withdrawer rate and completion rate were not reported.
  
  
• The survey measured video-game involvement during the past year and DSM-IV Pathological Gambling (PG) items.
  
  • Video-game involvement measures included frequency of play, number of hours played, and type of game played, including: TV games (e.g., Xbox, Nintendo, Playstation); phone-based games; hand-held games (e.g., Nintendo, Gameboy); PC games; and arcade games.
  • Researchers assessed PG using the DSM-IV Juvenile Criteria (DSM-IV-J; Fisher, 1992); a screening instrument for gambling-related problems among adolescents modified from the DSM-IV criteria for PG.
    
    • A 12-item yes/no scale.
      
      • According to Fisher (1992), a total score of four or more indicates pathological gambling.
      • The screen asked about current problems. Five items specify “in the past year,” six items are asked in the present tense, and one item was more ambiguous (Have you fallen out with members of your family, or close friends, because of your gambling behavior?).
      
      
    
    
  
  
• The participants’ DSM-IV-J scores permitted the investigators to establish three groups: Not at risk (i.e., endorsed no items on the scale); At-risk (i.e., endorsed 1-3 items on the scale); and PGs (i.e., endorsed 4 or more items on the scale).
• The authors conducted a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine associations between gambling-related problems and the frequency and type of video game playing.

Results...

[FULL INFO HERE] 


[Story also picked up on GamePolitics.com]

Read more...

Is Software Licensed or Sold?

by Craig Buckler

Selling software is a legal minefield. When you purchase a digital product, you’re not buying the CD/DVD and packaging, but a license to use the software. The license is a legally-binding agreement that determines how you may use that product. If software was “sold”, you would be the legal owner and could do what you wanted, e.g. install it anywhere, disassemble it, give it away or anything else that didn’t contravene copyright laws.

However, what happens when you no longer need that product? Is it possible to re-sell your software license to another party in the same way that you can sell a second-hand book, music CD or movie DVD? It’s a legal grey area which has been highlighted by the case of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

A SitePoint forum post by Dan Schulz describes the full legal arguments in detail. In summary, Vernor attempted to sell legal copies of AutoCAD on eBay but had his account suspended following intervention by Autodesk Inc. Vernor sued Autodesk in federal court:

• Vernor claimed he purchased the license from vendors who must have been the legal owners of the software. Therefore, the ownership transferred to him on purchase.
• Autodesk contended that ownership was never transferred, Vernor’s sale infringed copyright, cited that its license was a “computer software agreement”, and the industry normally restricted ownership transfers.

The court disagreed with Autodesk and felt it had “little competent evidence of software industry practice” presented before it. The ruling therefore allows the licensed party to transfer software ownership and the copyright owner has no say in the matter. Software companies are selling a product that an end-user owns; if they receive the full value up-front, they cannot control that software once it’s in the stream of commerce.

Autodesk may yet appeal, but at least a dozen copies of AutoCAD are currently available on eBay.com.

Could the ruling be good news for web developers? End users rarely purchase web applications or “own” the software — they subscribe to a service. Many software companies will be re-considering their software distribution options.

[via Sitepoint.com]

Read more...