The shutdown was implemented to protect youth, but its effectiveness has been questioned and controversial due to regulatory loopholes, human rights violations, and unfair regulation of the gaming industry. The system needs to change if it is to fulfill its original purpose of protecting youth.
When you think of Cinderella, you think of the glass slipper and the pumpkin carriage, but perhaps the most memorable scene is when the clock strikes 12 and the spell is broken and Cinderella leaves the ballroom. Not long ago, the search term “Cinderella law” hit the top of an internet portal’s real-time trending searches and stayed there for a while. While the familiar fairy tale title has become a hot topic as people wonder what it has to do with the law, the law itself is highly controversial. The Cinderella Law refers to the direct shutdown system currently in place in South Korea, which restricts internet gaming to those under the age of 16 for a six-hour late-night period from 0am to 6am. It’s been nicknamed the Cinderella Law because restricting gaming after 12:00 is akin to Cinderella being disenchanted and unable to enjoy the ball after 12:00. However, there are a number of problems with this law, which is why we oppose the implementation of a direct shutdown system.
Shut Down is a system that regulates access to games in order to protect young people from the problems that come with playing games, such as internet addiction, increased violence, and lack of socialization, and to promote their right to sleep and learn. The system was first proposed in 2004 at the Forum for Preparing Measures to Secure the Right to Sleep for Youth, and an attempt was made to legislate it in 2005 with the ‘Partial Amendment Bill to the Juvenile Protection Act’. However, the system was not enacted due to much opposition, and it was not until 2011 that it was passed as the Juvenile Protection Act Amendment Bill. It came into effect on November 20, 2011, and after a transition period, full-scale enforcement began in 2012.
There are three types of shutdown systems: indirect shutdown system, selective shutdown system, and direct shutdown system. First, the indirect shutdown system is a method of reducing game usage by providing incentives, such as no benefits such as experience or game money for playing for a certain amount of time, or benefits for not playing for a certain amount of time. Second, selective shutdowns are when a gaming company discloses a child’s gaming activity to parents upon request and limits the amount of time they can play games to a set number of hours. Third, the direct shutdown system prohibits young people from playing games between the hours of 12:00 and 6:00 against their will. The current system in place is the direct shutdown system, which has a number of problems, including the effectiveness of the law, discrimination and ambiguity in the way it is regulated, violation of the human rights of young people, and harm to the gaming industry.
First of all, direct shutdowns are not a logical way to reduce gaming addiction because they don’t actually regulate gaming addiction. The argument in favor of the shutdown system is that teenagers use the internet a lot at night, and by regulating it, we can reduce addiction and ensure their right to health. The table below shows the main hours of internet use by adolescents, which the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family used to argue for the shutdown system. The statistics show that between 22:00 and 02:00, 15-19 year olds use the internet six times more than 9-14 year olds. This has led to claims that teens are more addicted than children, and that their right to sleep is being violated.
However, internet addiction is a matter of how long you play, not how much you play. For example, heavy gaming from 6 to 12 is a problem, not heavy gaming from 12 to 12:30. Also, the reason why 15- to 19-year-olds are most likely to use the internet between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. is because most high school students have nightly self-study that ends at 10 p.m. Therefore, the argument that more people are addicted to the internet because they play a lot at night doesn’t hold up. Implementing the law without understanding the underlying causes of gaming addiction or what exactly it is has led to a useless system that simply restricts gaming at night. In addition, the statistical data shows the 22:00 to 2:00 hours, but not the 0:00 to 6:00 hours, which is when the restrictions are supposed to be implemented. This is a loophole in the statistics, and it is difficult to expect the effectiveness of the shutdown system if there is a clear distinction between 10:00 and 12:00 and 12:00 and 2:00, and fewer people play games after 12:00.
Second, it is a problem caused by a loophole in the direct shutdown system. The way to identify a youth is the social security number registered to the account. This is a loophole that allows teens to use their parents’ or other adults’ social security numbers. Also, because the regulation is based on the social security number, it cannot regulate games that do not require the use of a social security number. The gaming industry has already taken advantage of this by offering games that only require an email address to sign up. For example, HanGame has been allowing players to sign up with just an email address for games without age restrictions since 2005, and NCsoft has changed its gaming portal PlayNC to require only email verification for membership. This is similar to YouTube’s circumvention of the real-name requirement in 2009. At the time, Google prevented YouTube from uploading videos from South Korean accounts, but it did not block IPs, so users could upload videos by changing their nationality in the user settings. The regulations of the shutdown system can be easily circumvented in this way.
These loopholes are not only an efficiency issue, but they also encourage the negative behavior of identity theft. By allowing teens to use another adult’s social security number late at night, it encourages illegal behavior by giving them the false perception that they need to steal to play games. In a survey of 600 students, 9% of students used an adult’s social security number to play games late at night, and 40% of these students opened accounts without their parents’ permission. Furthermore, the use of non-family members’ social security numbers has also increased. Despite the fact that name theft is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment under the Resident Registration Act, 40% of late-night gaming students are doing it, and young people perceive it as “nothing” or “something you can do to play a game. Direct shutdowns may be contributing to the increase in this behavior by making it seem less of a big deal to teens.
Third, the direct shutdown system violated youth’s right to autonomy in the process of enforcing the law. According to Article 5(2) of the Youth Basic Law, national and local governments should involve youth in processes such as consultation and deliberation of youth-related policies, and collect their opinions, so that youth can access relevant information and express their wishes. It is undisputed that the shutdown system is a youth-related system, and as such, youth participation in the formulation of the law should have been ensured, but there was only a consultation between the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Affairs and the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, and youth autonomy was not guaranteed. This is a violation of the Basic Law before the Youth Protection Act, and it is unacceptable for a law for youth to be enforced without their participation.
Fourth, the way the shutdown system is regulated violates the rights of game companies. Proponents of the law argue that it is perfectly acceptable to restrict the business hours of gaming companies, just as it is acceptable to restrict the business hours of cram schools and cafes. However, it is necessary to evaluate whether it is reasonable in terms of legitimacy of purpose, minimization of infringement, and balancing of legal interests in accordance with the principle of prohibition of excess, and without such evaluation, it infringes on the freedom to practice one’s profession. The shutdown system also violates the equality rights of game companies. Rather than regulating all games, console games without network capabilities and packaged games were excluded from the regulation, while smartphones and tablet computers were exempted for two years. Furthermore, Korean game companies are regulated, even if they are online games, while foreign game companies are not. Networked games would have to be more addictive than non-networked games to warrant such a disparity in regulatory coverage, but there is no evidence for this. Furthermore, regulating only Korean companies would require games made by Korean game companies to be dramatically more addictive, which is also not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the current regulation discriminates against companies and violates the right to equality. In fact, the reason for regulating only Korean games, especially those that provide network services, is that there is no way to regulate other games. For example, StarCraft initially called for a ban, but the ban was withdrawn when Blizzard Soft said it would block all IPs after midnight, not just youth. It’s wrong to force a system when we’re not ready to enforce it, and it’s impractical to enforce it.
The nickname “Cinderella law” gives a good image of a good character and a happy ending, but the shutdown system, which is being implemented without thorough preparation and without a proper regulatory methodology, ignoring the opinions of young people, is covered in the ashes of criticism and opposition, just like Cinderella’s original “ash-covered maiden”. If the shutdown is to have a happy ending and fulfill its original purpose of protecting youth, the current system needs to change.
