Slashdot Mirror

It's not only translation but also national regulations. For example, some countries won't allow films that have not been rated by the country's monopoly classification authority to be shown or to be sold on home video. Ratings from another country's classification authority (such as CARA) don't count.

What about the increase in "morally despicable" content in movies in the late 60's? Did that contribute to the downfall of civilization? Maybe comic book violence and salacious, "morally despicable" stories in the 1950's? How about the increase of "morally despicable" content in books in the 1800's? Seriously... read a damn history book. Video games are nothing more and nothing less than a new form of media, and there is always a knee-jerk reaction from society against any new media. The parent is FAR from "Insightful".

Evidence?

Having your movie rated is optional (and obviously
hasn't caused any reduction in the production of
porn movies!): http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm#Q6

I'm not sure what the reference to organic foods is
about... Obviously you're not allowed to advertise a
product as something it's not. How is that different
from any other food product on the market?

Do you consider the ESRB useful?

Personally? No.
However I have nothing against people who do wish to pay attention to the ESRB, no problem with people who to make whatever personal decision they like based on ESRB info. Just so long they don't have any ideas about compelling anyone else to pay any attention to the ESRB.

Now I might not need the government to restrict video games, but how about rating them?

Game publishers, and book publishers, and movie publishers, and poem publishers, they all have the freedom to send (or not send) their work to anyone they like for a rating. The New York Times rates stuff, the Christian Family Values groups rate stuff, various magazines rate stuff, websites rate stuff, even Oprah rates stuff. And yes, if you like you can choose to send your movie to be rated by the MPAA or send your videogame to be rated by the ESRB. However both of those are entirely voluntary, and neither has any connection whatsoever to law. No more legal authority than Oprah's ratings. Virtually all movie theaters decline to admit children under 17 into MPAA R-Rated movies, and most movie theaters decline to carry unrated movies, however those are not imposed on them by force of law. Not enforced by men with guns. Virtually all theaters have the age-17 policy for R-rated movies for PR reasons, they know that having a half hearted "official policy" age limit for R-rated movies is worth it to keep the Family Values groups from protesting theater or otherwise making a nuisance of themselves. The fact that most theaters do not carry unrated movies has absolutely nothing to do with unrated content... the MPAA abuses their monopoly power to deny theaters access to any mainstream movies if they ever play a non MPAA(non-MPAA rated) movie. Any theater that plays an unrated movie... even if it is a cute little remake of Pinoccio or Frosty The Snowman, that theater is denied any future MPAA releases. You can run a theater playing MPAA-released (and MPAA rated) movies, or you can play indie releases and unrated foreign films, but the MPAA forbids you to do both. They won't do business with you.

doesn't mean video games aren't influencing us, in probably negative or probably positive ways

So do books. So do G.I. Joe and Barbie. So did Elvis Presley.

If people want to talk about it, or study it, great, have at it. However I am going to jump in loudly when someone calls for legislation to forcibly restrict people simply because they dislike something, and I am going to jump in when someone defends the people calling for such legislation. Crazy claims were made about Elvis Presley's destructive influence and crazy claims are made about Harry Potter's destructive witchcraft influence, and crazy claims are being made about videogames.

And even if the claims of harm weren't ridiculous, even the KKK have the right to publish their crap in pamphlet or book or even videogame form. Trying to legislate against "harmful ideas" is itself more dangerous and harmful that whatever is being targeted.

there is far to much violence in video games

(1) Almost all games are fundamentally about conflict, and violence is a pretty significant area/theme of conflict. Even chess is fundamentally about two armies of people slaughtering each other.
(2) People buy what they want and enjoy, and the good old free market controls and adapts supply to that free choice. Country music makes me want to hurl, but the "problem" is that that's what a lot of people like, not that some singers produce it or that some stores sell it.
(3) I think you need to look at the actual available games, and not just the ones that draw protesters and make headlines. There really aren't many graphically violent games. Only a few games go much beyond blowing up spaceships or other cartoonish level violence. I can't believe you claim the medium is limited. There are tons and tons of racing, simulator, sport, fina

"Submitting a film is purely a voluntary decision made by the filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of the producers creating entertaining, responsible films do in fact submit their films for ratings. All five Classification and Rating Administration rating symbols have been trademarked and may not be self-applied."

Next time when we have one of these articles on Slashdot, can they include this text at the end? It would save us a lot of time.

The movie rating system is not from the government.
http://www.filmratings.com/
Read the questions and answers. It's a voluntary system that movie theaters have adopted to prevent the possibility of government censorship. Unrated movies can be and are filmed, distributed, and shown in movie theaters across the country.

Sounds like the MPAA rating on xXx:

Rated PG-13 for violence, non-stop action sequences, sensuality, drug content and language.

How are those rating criteria when bad acting, uninspired directing, insipid plot and clice soundtrack aren't?

Is the rating system a law?
No, the rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law

and

Who enforces the ratings? While the decision to enforce the rating system is purely voluntary, the National Association of Theatre Owners estimate that the majority of theaters observe the Classification and Rating Administration's guidelines

Sounds pretty clear to me that the ratings are not enforced by law in any way. This includes the actual rating of the movies and the actual enforcement of the ratings.

Yeah considering there aren't laws around movie ratings, which is kinda the point really.

http://www.filmratings.com/questions.htm

My entire problem with the campaign against the GTA series is with censorship. My original post was ill-elaborated to show this, but it was to say that people have wanted to censor this game out of existence for far longer than there was knowledge of this mini sex-game. This is just the latest attack on the game. As of the discovery of this unlockable content it was very predictable that those who were already against the game would vigorously renew thier fight. As soon as more mainstream media started paying attention it was very predictable that the game would be pulled from store shelves. My additional prediction is that a lawsuit against Rockstar is in their near future. They will do anything to stop this content from being produced. I would rather see the market decide.

Personally, I don't like the game. I certainly don't think that children should be playing it. I've hardly ever played it, though I know someone who has it and I've seen him play it. I don't think that they target children in the advertising of this, but I also don't think that they're as exclusive as they should be. Truthfully, I object to a game where the character can beat hookers and steal their money.

The thing is, I don't think that my opinion should be forced on others. I don't believe that because I'm offended by this game that others should be, nor should they be blocked from playing it. If I had children they wouldn't be permitted to play this game. I wouldn't expect to stop other people's children from playing it, unless it were in my home. I think they could've done better at showing the ads for this game only during the later evening. I don't think that the government should force them to do that, though.

This sort of censorship is, in my opinion, the worst kind. It's not a very clear and direct censorship. They aren't being told they can't produce a game, they're being told that no one should sell it. It is the old "If a tree falls in the forest..." scenerio. If their distribution channels are significantly severed then they can't get their content to the public as efficiently and they are to great extent censored simply by that action. This is worse than simply banning it from sale because the public doesn't realize this is happening.

You mentioned being unfamiliar with the AO rating. This rating is comparable to the X rating that the movie industry uses. It means that the game should be restricted from being viewed by any children. The M rating is comparable to R, it means that the game is not intended for those under 17. Perhaps the biggest difference in the ratings is that the movie industry is more active in ensuring that they're guidelines are followed. It's far more difficult for a minor to buy an R rated movie than an M rated game. This is something that should probably change. I really think that the M rating and "Strong Sexual Content" modifier should have been enough for this game, even with the hidden content.

Censorship has actually come a long way and it's won in some cases. Take a look at Larry Flint's legacy (not a great man [just a pornographer], not a great reasoning [pornography], but certainly a great cause [free speech]) to see where he won and lost. Each loss was a win for censorship. Not that I think everything Larry Flint fought for was right, but he did believe in freedom of expression. Every rating system that we have in place is a partial win for censorship. Ratings are good things, but only if they work. Part of them working is the enforcement of their recommendations at the cash register.

I'm not familiar with all of the grassroots organizations that were involved in helping to push this story into the mass-media and congressional eye. I do know that this s

Both ratings systems, video game and movie, are 100% voluntary and totally created by the industry, without legslative mandidate. The thought was if you self regulate, you can avoid the government stepping in and forcing regulation.

There are plenty of movies out there that are unrated, as in they were never submitted to the MPAA for rating. That's perfectly legal and they are sold all the time. Some are like Van Wilder, in it's orignal form the movie was to get an NC-17, so they made changes suggested by the MPAA to get an R rating. The orignal was released on DVD as an unrated film (you can also buy the R rated version if you like). Some are simply small/indie works that never bother to submit for rating. They aren't NC-17 material or anything, they just do not bother to get rated.

Likewise with videogames. The industry created the ESRB to rate games. Now they had to come up with their own system, the MPAA system is copyrighted and trademarked up the ass so only the MPAA can use it. The ESRB system is likewise, that's how they prevent people from misuing their ratings logos, it's their trademark and you'll get sued for using it without permission.

Hence the different ratings. Had they used the film ratings, the MPAA would have come after them. So they made their own manifestly similar system with different names, letters and a different logo style.

It's all voluntary, including on the part of the stores. Most stores voluntairly choose to stock only ESRB rated games. If you game is unrated the simply will decline to stock it. Also most voluntairly check ID on rated M games and refuse sale to minors. None of this is mandidated.

So stop jerking your damn knee for a second and get the facts.

http://www.filmratings.com/
http://www.esrb.org/

That's a good point. The ratings specify for R that children under 17 are not permitted, while parents are simply cautioned about inappropriate material for PG-13.

Source

Of course, this is all still voluntary. There's no legal enforcement. However, I do know some movie theaters enforce the R rating (as I mentioned originally).

The PG-13® film rating did not exist when the first three Star Wars movies (Episodes IV through VI) came out. Return of the Jedi (Ep VI) came out in 1983; PG-13 didn't start until July 1984, apparently because Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was right smack between PG and R. In fact, some believe that The Empire Strikes Back (Ep V) could have been PG-13 had that rating existed.

we should just go ahead and ... use the movie rating system that parents already know the meanings of.

CARA's familiar ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) are trademarked, and I don't see how CARA would agree to expand the scope of those ratings from films to games.

What I find offensive about parents who try to decry video games based on content is that they act like the rating system isn't even there.

Perhaps their boeuf is not with the video game publishers but rather with video game retail stores that sell or rent ESRB::M games without carding the customer.

Perhaps it's time for the ESRB to change their rating scheme to match that of the movies

That would mean every game would become more expensive to rate, as ESRB would have to pay a royalty to CARA (a division of the MPAA), owner of the G(R), PG(R), PG-13(R), R(R), and NC-17(R) trademarks.

It's a 1:1 translation.

Almost. Much of what ESRB rates E bleeds into what CARA rates G. (EC is apparently reserved for preschool edutainment.)

That is, splicing single frames of pornography into Disney films.

Who needs single frames? Many films distributed by The Walt Disney Company are rated R by the MPAA's ratings board because they contain whole scenes of nudity. Disney's Mumford and Disney's Full Frontal are far from being the only examples.

But I'm still not buying Mr. Eisner's crap, porn or no porn.

I don't think it is law, it is a volunteer thing done by the movie industry.
The movie rating system is a voluntary system sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners...

On this page, it claims "[T]he rating system is strictly voluntary and carries no force of law."