Slashdot Mirror

The filters have usually been super-secret

In case it might be of interest, in the UK, on mobile networks at least, the existence of filters is not (and, as far as I know, has never been) secret, and the categories of content which are likely to render a site being blocked are published too. I appreciate that this is, of course, not the same as a "what's blocked and what's not list".)

The UK's infrastructure mobile operators published the "Code of practice for the self-regulation of new forms of content on mobiles" in January 2004, with the filters being implemented about a year later in early 2005. The code was updated in 2009, and is accessible here. The code still references the Independent Mobile Classification Body, but this is no longer the right place: the IMCB's role has been replaced by the British Board of Film Classification, which also administers the age ratings for films for the UK.

The BBFC documents its approach to mobile content classification on its website, here, including setting out the type of content which the BBFC considers suitable for "adults only", the details of mobile operator contact points in the event that a site operator considers that their site is incorrectly classified, and an appeals procedure against decisions taken by the BBFC.

Whilst there is no published "what's blocked and what's not" list, the mobile operators buy third party services for website classification; most, but not all, buy from Symantec. Symantec has a web interface for its "ratings tool" here, which (after a captcha) lets anyone see how Symantec has classified a particular URL. This is complemented by the Open Rights Group tool (here): the ORG tool does a real-time check of whether a site is blocked across mobile and fixed networks, and the Symantec tool indicates the classification given to the site by Symantec.

The British ratings body, the BBFC, doesn't quite take the quantitative approach you suggest here, but it does provide quite detailed breakdowns of the elements that led to a particular classification for a given work. I'm surprised the MPAA doesn't do something similar.

Considering that the BBFC decided *by itself* in 2002 to legalise pr0n videos/dvds

Not really. Their guidelines address things like whether material is "unacceptable to broad public opinion", and as public opinion shifts then the interpretation of such clauses should shift with it. All that happened was that they recognised that the range of what was acceptable had widened, but not so wide as to include everything that had been rated R18 or banned completely.

How about enhancing the game engine with polygon graphics like http://www.doomsdayhq.com/ ...? I read the iPhone port has audio improvements. Can we get those for the original computer/PC port?

The problem is, any time you modify the original game content and decide to sell it stores, you have to get the game rerated by the BBFC and ESRB. It's often the cause as to why developers and publishers just provide updates on their website, rather than integrating the updates with the published discs.

The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material. It can withhold certification, but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.

Nope, this is far from true. Firstly, as someone has already pointed out, it's illegal to show unclassified films or rent/sell unclassified DVDs and videos. (I think the Government was planning to extend this to the web.) Secondly, the BBFC can and do demand specific cuts in material. Thirdly, while if the material in question will breach criminal law (including the OPA) the BBFC do refuse to classify it, it's not the only reason why.

For example, any film that depicts explicit sex acts can only be rated as R18, which means it's not allowed to contain any violence (including violence not linked in any way to sexual activity), the infliction of pain, humiliation, sex portrayed as non-consensual, or "any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent". The last one is generally interpreted by the BBFC to prohibit anyone being shown tied up and gagged in an R18 film. Basically, anything kinky is risky. (A fairly large percentage of R18s, about 20-30% of those rated this year, have BBFC-imposed cuts.) This may have made sense, once upon a time...

Also, the BBFC have various other odd... quirks, which aren't officially documented by them. For example, they don't like nunchucks, so those often get cut - including in 18-rated films. Plus, if the BBFC think a film contains any depiction of criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, "horrific behaviour or incidents", or sex that may harm potential viewers or cause them to act in a way harmful to society, they are legally required to ban it. Yes, the law really is that vaguely-worded.

More specifically, anything that could be taken to encourage the use of illegal drugs is banned - including a DVD extra from Weeds Season 2 which is a parody of cookery shows discussing different varieties of weed. Additionally, anything dangerous that they're worried children might copy is also banned - often at all classifications. This includes stuff like "combat techniques, hanging, suicide and self-harm".

It's worth noting that over the past 10-15 years the BBFC has trended towards permissiveness, granting certification to previously 'banned' films, often attracting the ire of politicians in the process and effectively pushing the boundaries of what can be considered (legally) obscene material.

That's mostly because, in retrospect, those banned films don't look nearly as nasty as they were originally made out to be. Also, don't expect this to last - it looks like the Government are trying to get more control over the BBFC.

The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material. It can withhold certification, but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.

Nope, this is far from true. Firstly, as someone has already pointed out, it's illegal to show unclassified films or rent/sell unclassified DVDs and videos. (I think the Government was planning to extend this to the web.) Secondly, the BBFC can and do demand specific cuts in material. Thirdly, while if the material in question will breach criminal law (including the OPA) the BBFC do refuse to classify it, it's not the only reason why.

For example, any film that depicts explicit sex acts can only be rated as R18, which means it's not allowed to contain any violence (including violence not linked in any way to sexual activity), the infliction of pain, humiliation, sex portrayed as non-consensual, or "any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent". The last one is generally interpreted by the BBFC to prohibit anyone being shown tied up and gagged in an R18 film. Basically, anything kinky is risky. (A fairly large percentage of R18s, about 20-30% of those rated this year, have BBFC-imposed cuts.) This may have made sense, once upon a time...

Also, the BBFC have various other odd... quirks, which aren't officially documented by them. For example, they don't like nunchucks, so those often get cut - including in 18-rated films. Plus, if the BBFC think a film contains any depiction of criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, "horrific behaviour or incidents", or sex that may harm potential viewers or cause them to act in a way harmful to society, they are legally required to ban it. Yes, the law really is that vaguely-worded.

More specifically, anything that could be taken to encourage the use of illegal drugs is banned - including a DVD extra from Weeds Season 2 which is a parody of cookery shows discussing different varieties of weed. Additionally, anything dangerous that they're worried children might copy is also banned - often at all classifications. This includes stuff like "combat techniques, hanging, suicide and self-harm".

It's worth noting that over the past 10-15 years the BBFC has trended towards permissiveness, granting certification to previously 'banned' films, often attracting the ire of politicians in the process and effectively pushing the boundaries of what can be considered (legally) obscene material.

That's mostly because, in retrospect, those banned films don't look nearly as nasty as they were originally made out to be. Also, don't expect this to last - it looks like the Government are trying to get more control over the BBFC.

The BBFC's job is classification, not censorship. It has no power to ban material or demand cuts in any material.

As of the Video Recordings Act 1984, video can only be legally sold or hired if it has been classified. (Consider the recent case of Manhunt 2 as an example.)

Indeed, the BBFC's name changed from "censors" to "classification" at the same time that the Act changed their job from that of classification to censorship. As summed up in a House of Lords debate:

"On Report, I spoke about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I did not repeat one of the juiciest pieces about it. Until that time, we had a British Board of Film Censors, which was not a censorship board. It classified films, and if it refused to classify them, they could still be shown with the permission of local authorities. The Video Recordings Act 1984 changed the board from being a classification board to being a censorship board because if a video recording was not approved by the board, it could not be shown at all. From being a classification board, it became a censorship board, but its name changed from being a censorship board to a classification board. George Orwell would have been proud."

but certification is only withheld where it's considered the material in question would breach the criminal law, usually the Obscene Publications Act.

That's one reason, but the class of material they will refuse to classify is slightly broader than that (e.g., see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php ).

Now having said that, I agree with the main point of your post in that the problem is with the laws rather than the BBFC - in this case, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and the Obscene Publications Act (not to mention a new law that as of January 26 will criminalise possession of adult images considered "extreme" by the Government).

The UK does have a film censor board — fairly mild as such things go, but the government will send men with guns to stop you from selling a movie without a BBFC certificate, so it's a censorship board nonetheless.

Here's an excerpt:

"The challenge that must be addressed, surely, is how to release the secular stranglehold on prime time television and radio and bathe in the light of Christ programming that occupies the screen in most households most nights of the week." GROAN.

I've listed some more information about it on bitburo.net. I hope the BBFC doesn't take this whackjob seriously.

From TFA:

Rockstar today launched its appeal against the BBFC's decision to refuse Manhunt 2 certification, accusing the board of putting its reputation above the interests of gamers.

I should hope that the BBFC puts its reputation above that of gamers, movie goes or anyone else for that matter.

The article talks of the BBFC's use of hyperbole but if you read their press release, they say:

Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game.

None of this to me suggests that the BBFC is out of touch with games. In fact I'd accuse Mr Robertson of hyperbole suggesting the BBFC is the British Board of Videogame Censors as a quick search of their records shows that Manhunt 2 is the only game currently listed as rejected.

Actually, the BBFC is a Private company. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.

Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.

Actually, the BBFC is a Private company. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.

Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.

I'm in the UK as well, Had Manhunt 2 was refused a rating by the BBFC, not banned; that made it illegal to sell it in the UK, but not illegal to own.
  Porn is treated differently and, intrestingly, had Manhunt 2 been porographic instead of violent it would probably recieved an R 18 Cert. AFAIK only snuff films are banned entirely (illegal to own; public decency laws mean quite a lot isn't for sale), although I think that there's a bill banning violent porn on it's way through parliment due to the family of a dead woman blaiming her death on it. I'm at work, so I'm not going to google for links...

Sure. The press release is here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/stories/20070417.html and the study itself (PDF link) here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Policy%20and%2 0Research/BBFC%20Video%20Games%20Report.pdf

Sure. The press release is here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/stories/20070417.html and the study itself (PDF link) here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Policy%20and%2 0Research/BBFC%20Video%20Games%20Report.pdf

There are a great many things you can't do while still being able to die for your country.

For example, in the US you can die for your country but you can't drink a beer - service personnel don't have to be at least 21 years old to enlist, but you do have to be 21 to drink legally. And the same is true in the UK and most other countries. And it's not just buying a beer, it's stuff like being able to smoke, being able to drive, being able to vote, being able to stand for election, being able to marry without parental consent, etc.

In fact, I bet that there are very few nations (if any) that give you every adult right before they'll willingly let you die for your country.

But back to the topic at hand...

There is nothing wrong with society in general deciding which forms of entertainment are acceptable and which aren't. In some places cock-fighting is legal, in others it's not. In some places certain sexual acts between consenting adults is legal, in others it's not. In some places portraying certain historical figures as heroes is legal, in others it's not. Somewhere out there, using your neighbours kids for target practice might be legal, but (thankfully) most places it's not. In many aspects, this is no different.

At least in the BBFC's case, those deciding what's acceptable and what's not are following certain criteria in making their judgements, rather than handing down arbitrary decisions. Every film shown in the UK goes through their hands for classification and I don't see film makers complaining that the BBFC is over-zealous about its job, so why assume that this case is any different?

You might not like the idea of any watchdogs but at least the BBFC is a publicly accountable watchdog and will tell you why a certain classification was merited. In the case of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, well, who knows how they decide what's OK and what's not.

Every society has rules. We don't always like them all (Please tell me why I should have to endure others poisoning me with their tobacco smoke when I wait for my train?) but it's the price we pay for being members of our communities.

If you really feel so strongly about it then I suggest you do something concrete about it: take part in the BBFC's appeals process or write to Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft and express your concerns.

That section, about local councils being able to overrule the BBFC, only applies to films in cinemas. The BBFC's classifications for videos, DVDs, computer games etc. are legally binding. So contacting your local council is, in this case, pointless. Rockstar, as the distributor, can appeal the decision to the Video Appeals Committee (and could, presumably, apply to the High Court for judicial review of the decision if they are still unhappy.) And you, as a member of the public, can contact the BBFC to make your views known, if you choose.

"The comparison many gamers want to make is with films; they ask themselves if violence in games should be regarded as in some way worse than violence in films. The first point many make, especially young gamers, is that violence in games does not look anything like as real as the violence in films. Films have actors who are, and look, real, whereas in games the people are, despite improvements in graphics, clearly distinguishable from real."

"The argument is that violence in video games is not as affecting as violence in films because it looks much less real. Gamers believe that film versions of game action would be intolerable; it would be more frightening and upsetting because more real."

"Not many are articulate about this, but the majority of gamers seem to feel that the greater realism of film violence (and the strength of the characterisation and narrative) makes it much more upsetting than video game violence. This difference is usually taken to transcend whatever effect interactivity has on levels of involvement in, and ownership of, violence in games."

"The comparison many gamers want to make is with films; they ask themselves if violence in games should be regarded as in some way worse than violence in films. The first point many make, especially young gamers, is that violence in games does not look anything like as real as the violence in films. Films have actors who are, and look, real, whereas in games the people are, despite improvements in graphics, clearly distinguishable from real."

"The argument is that violence in video games is not as affecting as violence in films because it looks much less real. Gamers believe that film versions of game action would be intolerable; it would be more frightening and upsetting because more real."

"Not many are articulate about this, but the majority of gamers seem to feel that the greater realism of film violence (and the strength of the characterisation and narrative) makes it much more upsetting than video game violence. This difference is usually taken to transcend whatever effect interactivity has on levels of involvement in, and ownership of, violence in games."

Nope, our "AO" is R18: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/c_R18.php .However it's also enforceable, as it's intended only for hard-core porn, and stuff rated R18 can only be sold in licensed sex shops.

Actually, the BBFC sometimes still bans videos (example: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/C37 29363E325183080256D64001B6697?OpenDocument ), so unless you mean films in the narrow sense of cinematic presentations (and perhaps not even then), you're not correct. This is the first video-game ban in ten years (and the previous ban was overturned on appeal).

Statistics:
The most recent cinematic film ban was in 2000 (although local authorities have the power to overturn it).
1 film was rejected on video/DVD in 2006. 7 were rejected in 2005; 2 in 2004; 3 in 2003; 2 in 2002; 1 in 2001; 4 in 2000.

As to the BBFC being a public body - I think the BBFC may technically be a private body, although under the Video Recordings Act its judgements on videos and videogames carry the weight of the law for as long as the BBFC remains the body designated by the Secretary of the State under the Act.

As to whether the HRA could be used to overturn the ban - doubtful, but if it is, then Ireland and Germany will have something to worry about too. Ireland bans more films than the UK, while Germany is apparently harsh towards videogames.

The point is that the law would discriminate against videogames, and not regulate the sales of violent movies or other media.

Those laws already exist, for example the UK has the BBFC which regulates domestic sales of media. IMHO extending the system to include games is a no brainer. It didn't make sense with pacman, but games are getting more and more imersive and this change is inevitable.

Unfortunately, the BBFC has a history of requiring cuts, for example headbutts are frowned upon, in order to release the film at all. And like with the MPAA ratings, producers will also cut scenes themselves in order to maximize profits by dropping the age requirement.

If we had something stronger than volunteer parental ratings for an ignorant parental populous, just maybe we wouldn't have to listen to Jack Thompson's tripe any longer. After all, the generation that up until very recently has been buying games for their kids has had NO way of understanding the medium - it's been foreign to parents, and therefore parents have made dubious purchasing decisions.

Why not make retailers check ID as a liquor store does? Some games are simply inappropriate for little kids and should be limited to adult consumption. They shouldn't be "banned" or limited in the production, but the sales should be limited to those who are old enough to have learned what boundaries are.

I can't speak for the whole EU but we certainly have such a system here in the UK. Many games on sale here have legally binding age restrictions on them (e.g. mininum age 15 or 18) and retailers can be prosecuted for selling such games to minors. These are on top of, and independent to, the recommended ratings from people like ESRB which aren't legally binding.

All the rating descisions are carried out by the British Board of Film Classification - the same group that rates films and DVDs etc.

Sort of. Most games Europe-wide get a PEGI rating, but this is for information only and doesn't actually have any legal force. However, UK games that depict "human sexual activity or gross violence to any significant extent" get a BBFC classification which it's a pretty serious offence for retailers to breach.

There is already a perfectly usable pan-European game rating system. It's voluntary, but I haven't seen a single game on sale in the UK that doesn't have it, with occasional mandatory BBFC ratings for more "realistic" games (GTA3 and beyond are all released with an 18 cert). As well as that, you'll find that a lot of stores here will abide by PEGI ratings, which detail exactly why the game has the rating it has (sex, violence, drugs and gambling amongst the reasons) supposedly so parents can make a more informed decision. I don't see how introducing more centralised bureaucracy is going to work any better than the current systems in place in European Union member states. Whatever ratings system you put in, you'll still get 45 year olds coming into the shop with a 12 year old waiting outside and swearing blind that the copy of Bloody Chainsaw Revenge IV they are buying is for their own personal use.

This stuff happens every time some psychopath decides to go on a rampage. Banning violent video games won't work, and is completely bloody stupid when you consider where half of your so-called "traditional" games come from. Chess is a war game. If you think British Bulldog is innocent, try thinking of it as a bunch of people trying to rush a gun platform. "Ring-a-roses" is a warning poem describing the symptoms of bubonic plague. The only difference between these games and video games is the fact that for the first time in history, a war game or zombie horror story can be rendered on a screen in real-time with precise detail.

You can only take a psycho down before they kill too many people. Sometimes you're lucky and someone will spot that a person is acting strangely or getting unstable. Banning violent video games will just mean that the next time someone decides to start dishing out mass lead injections, we'll have slingshots or some other item banned because, well, he started by firing marbles at cats and it progressed from there. Something Must Be Done, Think Of The Children, you catch my drift.

I hope the justice ministers discussing this have a sudden attack of common sense and declare that any mature, sensible adult should be able to engage in as much of an orgy of virtual destruction as they like. Fact is, taking some geek out with a headshot is fun, dammit. It's the old equation of "(fear - danger) == excitement".

Games are less engrossing than other media. Games are also more engrossing than other media. When you're comparing two categories as broad as "games" and "other media", almost any statement you can make will be true for some examples in each category. Trying to lump "games" and "other media" together in some sort of average sense to compare the two is ridiculous.

I'm sure that "players having less of an emotional connection to in-game events than the events in a book or movie" is exactly what happens when the game is Doom 3 and the movie is The Godfather; the opposite happens when the movie is Doom 3 and the game is Deus Ex. In cases where you might expect a game, film, and book to be roughly comparable, I can think of examples where each form of media was the most emotional experience of the three.

Glancing over the complete report, though, it's not as trite as the synopsis makes it sound. Here's an excellent example from the report of a game player being moved, to which the report author commented, "It is clear from this account that games can be very emotionally affecting."

"There's a point at the end of [Shadow of the Colossus] where everything you think is going to happen has happened, but it hasn't, and the horse is killed in a rock fall. It's just devastating... The impact it has on you. This has been your only friend and companion who has helped you and protected you. I really didn't see it coming. He just dies, then you are alone but you have to keep going. Nothing else can do that. There are countless extraordinary books that are extraordinarily moving, but they can't do that. Films and books can't make you lose anything. You can read about someone else's loss, you can empathise in a book, but a book can't ever take anything from you. But that game took my horse from me. He was my horse. He was my friend by that stage!

In that game if I wanted to get from here to here I had a horse and that was nice and quick and I could canter and jump over things and now I can't do that anymore. So in a basic, mechanical way something has been taken from me.

There are lots of tragic horse deaths in all kinds of films and books but... in a film everything that happens next is pre-calculated so the music will come in on a particular second and you will have your attention moved to something else, and your feelings are then manipulated and extrapolated by what happens next. In a game, I stood there looking down at where he had fallen. Nothing is going to happen until I make it happen. I could have stood there for the rest of my life. I could have put the game down and never played it again. Or started again and tried to make it not happen, which it
wouldn't. That changes the character of the experience."

Violence that is realistic and could be done by "easily acsessable weapons" is imiedatetely classified as at least a 15, and sometimes an 18, depending upon several different criteria, in a 12, it must not dwell on detail or have any emphasis on blood or injury. In a 15, easily acsessable weapons must not be glorified, and dangerus techniques such as hanging and self-harm must not be dwelled upon, however a sexual act may be portrayed but without strong detail.

if you want to read more about the BBFC guidelines, goto http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Guidelines/BBF C%20Guidelines%202005.pdf (PDF)

BTW, I don't work for them or anything, I'm a games development student, and we are in the middle of a project on Profetional Practices, including the regulation of the industry.

Thanks,
badspyro

Just to clarify the parent: the BBFC classifies games insofar as it's required to as the designated authority for the Video Recordings Act, and so only the 15+ and above ratings are required. (For games in general there's PEGI.) For films there's a wider set of classifications; the BBFC's role in the film industry predates its legislative functions. I don't know how much flexibility the Video Recordings Act offers to reflect public opinion in practice, but I suspect it's less than the Board enjoys in its non-statutory role.

What was really dangerous were the sound levels.

'This film was originally shown to the BBFC in an unfinished version, including a temporary score and sound mix. The BBFC advised the company that sound levels during some acts of violence may be too impactful for 12A and that the film was likely to receive a 15 classification. The final score and sound effects on the completed film included differences in sound levels which reduced the strength of some acts of violence to an extent which made the film acceptable at 12A.'

From their website, they gave a Sims expansion pack a 12 rating on Monday, because it "contains moderate sex references", they gave a game based on CSI a 15 for "bloody forensic detail", and a poker game was rated PG because of its "gambling theme".

From their website, they gave a Sims expansion pack a 12 rating on Monday, because it "contains moderate sex references", they gave a game based on CSI a 15 for "bloody forensic detail", and a poker game was rated PG because of its "gambling theme".

From their website, they gave a Sims expansion pack a 12 rating on Monday, because it "contains moderate sex references", they gave a game based on CSI a 15 for "bloody forensic detail", and a poker game was rated PG because of its "gambling theme".

One way these laws differ from the UK law is that certain violent / sexual content does put games into the legally enforcable BBFC ratings, but the BBFC ratings aren't a simple cutoff to an 18 rating, the BBFC have their own ratings system that runs in parallel to the PEGI system, that's also used for videos / DVDs, so you can see games with other BBFC ratings as well as 18 ones.

(There's also a second way for BBFC ratings to appear on games, as although most games are exempt from classification, most video content isn't, so some games end up with a BBFC rating from that instead).

Er, actually it is illegal to sell a video/DVD or a game to to an underage person in the UK, if the item as been rated by the BBFC (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/), as per the 1984 Video Recordings Act (and amended in 1993).

If the game has only been rated by PEGI (http://www.pegi.info/) then there is no legal statute to prevent the game being sold to underage people, though as you say, retailers generally don't.

*dodges sarcasm* ;-)

Sure, I found that, but I was looking for something more like what the BBFC shows on its site

(apologies for the links below -- I had to dig the relevant frames out of the original pages. BBFC say they'll have a redesigned site launching Monday, hopefully frameless!)

Year-by-year stats - number of works rated, percentage of those cut.
Search Works - by Type, Title, Director, Distributor, Cast and Free Text

...which returns information on the work such as this, instead of just a link to iMDB

Recent Decisions

Mostly, I'd be interested in stats from the MPAA similar to those in the first link.

*dodges sarcasm* ;-)

Sure, I found that, but I was looking for something more like what the BBFC shows on its site

(apologies for the links below -- I had to dig the relevant frames out of the original pages. BBFC say they'll have a redesigned site launching Monday, hopefully frameless!)

Year-by-year stats - number of works rated, percentage of those cut.
Search Works - by Type, Title, Director, Distributor, Cast and Free Text

...which returns information on the work such as this, instead of just a link to iMDB

Recent Decisions

Mostly, I'd be interested in stats from the MPAA similar to those in the first link.

*dodges sarcasm* ;-)

Sure, I found that, but I was looking for something more like what the BBFC shows on its site

(apologies for the links below -- I had to dig the relevant frames out of the original pages. BBFC say they'll have a redesigned site launching Monday, hopefully frameless!)

Year-by-year stats - number of works rated, percentage of those cut.
Search Works - by Type, Title, Director, Distributor, Cast and Free Text

...which returns information on the work such as this, instead of just a link to iMDB

Recent Decisions

Mostly, I'd be interested in stats from the MPAA similar to those in the first link.

*dodges sarcasm* ;-)

Sure, I found that, but I was looking for something more like what the BBFC shows on its site

(apologies for the links below -- I had to dig the relevant frames out of the original pages. BBFC say they'll have a redesigned site launching Monday, hopefully frameless!)

Year-by-year stats - number of works rated, percentage of those cut.
Search Works - by Type, Title, Director, Distributor, Cast and Free Text

...which returns information on the work such as this, instead of just a link to iMDB

Recent Decisions

Mostly, I'd be interested in stats from the MPAA similar to those in the first link.

Cool, thanks for the info.

The link between NC-17 and X, historical or not, is a bit daft, surely?

To my unAmerican ears, it sounds like: "Any other rating, you're safe. NC-17? Well, that just might be PORNOGRAPHY!"

We've got the 18 cert to say "Make Up Your Own Damn Minds. If you're at least this old, you should be big enough and ugly enough to figure out if the film contains material you'd object to." Or, in their own words, "at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law."

Our porn (videos from sex shops... your average smut) gets an R18 (R for Restricted). But no film with plot, narrative, etc ends up with an R18. That cert's really only for crappy porn directed by the likes of Phil McCavity and Hugh G. Coque. So no big loss to the cinema-going public :D

Incidentally, does the MPAA have a site like that of the British Board of Film Classification? ((link)). The site gives a nice overview of what each cert denotes, and some nice stats going back to 1912 showing what certs were awarded to what films, and how many cuts were made to films (a reassuringly low number - 97% of films recent films have passed with no cuts at all).

1: ratings bodies. This one is basically not optional for the producers, if industry led ratings schemes fail lots of countries would probablly replace them with government control and the industry really don't wan't that.

A government-appointed body like the BBFC for example? It seems to work OK this side of the pond.

Well the UK's had a mix of voluntary (currently PEGI, previously ELSPA) and law-backed (BBFC) ratings for video games for many many years (films are all BBFC-rated), and I don't see it turning into full-on control of what kids can see any time soon in the future... I doubt it would happen in the US either, but I could be wrong.

The UK ratings (from the top of http://www.bbfc.co.uk/) are:

Uc - Universal, especially suitable for children
U - Universal
PG - Parental Guidance, some scenes unsuitable for children
12 - For ages 12 and up only.
12A - Children under 12 must be accompanied by an adult. (Used for 12-rated movies when they're at the cinema)
15 - For ages 15 and up only.
18 - For ages 18 and up only.
R18 - For ages 18 and up only, only available in licensed sex shops.

So I guess your "M" is our "15" or "18", and your "AO" is our "R18".

It's a slightly different situation in the UK than in the USA. All films must get a classification from the BBFC while games tend to get a rating by the voluntary PEGI (or the older ELSPA). However certain games must also be submitted to the BBFC (e.g. GTA:SA has a BBFC 18 rating). On videos (and I believe also on games) these ratings are legally binding. For films shown at the cinema on the other hand, it's up to the local authority, however these nearly always use the BBFC rating (spiderman was one exception). The voluntary systems aren't legally binding and both Game and Amazon describe them as guidelines and don't give the impression that they enforce them.

On the subject of the R18 rating, this is used almost exclusively for hardcore porn and can only be sold in specially licenced shops (of which there are apparently about 90 in the UK)

Note to self : Preview next time. Wanted to add this : here in the UK we have a rating above 18, known as R18, which is used exclusively for pornography. Titles with that rating can only be sold in licensed 'sex shops'.
I'm not kidding.

In the UK adult games are rated by the BBFC which are the guys that also rate movies, GTA:SA got an 18 certificate which is why these sex scenes don't matter here. To be honest i doubt they would matter if it was rated 12, after all it's just 2 fully clothed cartoon people pretending to have sex, very erotic :/

Lets hope the kids don't learn how to type "boobs" into google or we'll see google getting banned.

In the UK adult games are rated by the BBFC which are the guys that also rate movies, GTA:SA got an 18 certificate which is why these sex scenes don't matter here. To be honest i doubt they would matter if it was rated 12, after all it's just 2 fully clothed cartoon people pretending to have sex, very erotic :/

Lets hope the kids don't learn how to type "boobs" into google or we'll see google getting banned.

The US AO rating does seem to be completly stupid, no game is ever actually rated it.

In the UK we have a slightly stange situation where most games have advisory ratings from PEGI (who took over a couple of years ago from ELSPA), but under certain critera they can have the legally enforced BBFC ratings, like DVDs and films.

But in the UK, the highest ratings (18+ for PEGI, 18 for BBFC) have been used (although the 18+ PEGI rating is rare, as most of them go into the BBFC ratings). Indeed, both Grand Theft Auto (all of them) and Killer 7 are BBFC 18, and they're commonly availible, I can go into my local ASDA (owned by Wal Mart) and buy them. But in the US, it seems that everyone is allergic to the AO rating, even the ESRB. I'd guess it's some sort of weird market forces, where the shops have all decided that AO really means it's banned. And mysteriously the industry run ESRB avoids it like a plauge as well. If I wasn't pissed, I'm sure I could make a better essay on the US puritan streak etc. (it's half like the Daily Mail ran a country!), but instead I'll end up with a horrid steam of conciousness thing. I mean, it's only some dry humping FFS. How does that change the bloody rating...

I'd also like to note the BBFC said during all this ho-hah over GTA:SA, that even if the "Hot Coffee" had been in the game, it would still be rated the same.

(I should note that for BBFC, there is the Restricted 18 rating as well (can only be sold in licenced sex shops, used for hardcore porn), but no game has ever qualified for it AFAIK).

I have the UK edition of the XBox version of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I bought it on the day of it's UK release, 10th June 2005.

This game carries an "18" certificate, see here for confirmation http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/Class ifiedWorks/AB362EDBC3607DE980256F25001B824D?OpenDo cument, which was awarded by the same body that certifies any DVD, video, cinema film or game and under UK law (The Video Recordings Act 1984, ammended in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) this certificate is legally enforcable.

This means it is illegal for a shop of any kind to sell or rent an "18" certificate title, like GTA:SA, to a person who is, or appears to be, under the age of 18.

I think the fault in the case of Grandma v. Rockstar/Take 2 is the US system for regulating video game sales. I work as a games tester, sadly I started after GTA:SA was tested over here as it would have been one of the guys in my team who would have the job of looking for the hot coffee style content, and I had to sign all sorts of paper work to say that I would work on material that was not yet rated, and that would be "18" or "R18" certified (R18 is basically porn, not to be sold out side of licenced adult shops). If the industry are this paranoid about the unfinished games being too extreme, they must be very careful about the finished titles.

It is really common for games to have content in them that isn't used.. for example, Half Life 1 I know had hundreds of textures that were never used, including the debug textures with "I AM NOT A TEXTURE!" scrawled all over them. There is no point in spending weeks trawling through your game files removing content you may or may not need. I don't blame Rockstar/Take 2 one bit for this, but I place the blame squarely with the parents, and in this case grandparents, of those kids who have been exposed to material not suitable for them.

One day, when I'm ready to have kids, I will make sure that I play they games first, before they see them. Maybe I won't complete them, but if I'm playing a game that's a bit suspect for kids anyway, like GTA:SA, I will make sure I'm there, watching them when they play it. If it turns out to be Kirby Land, I'll let them play it alone.

I personally don't think a 14 year old kid should be on the internet on their own anyway so they shouldn't have found the hot coffee mod, or at least not have the opportunity of using it without their parents knowledge.

-
Peter