Slashback: Decisions, Recognizance, Canadianisms

Welcome to another episode of Slashback, since stories keep popping up in parts rather than in neat, hermetic, well-encapsulated little packages. So read this -- it's like going to the demolition derby. You want to see the slip-ups, the revisions, the torture of correction, but without having beer poured on you by strangers. Read on if you'd like (at the very least) to know more about the the British Columbia law which relegated naughty (violent) video games to the back of the arcade.

And no, he didn't just slip through the bars. Grexnix writes "ShapeShifter, the 2600 staffer arrested during the Republican convention protests, has finally been released, after a series of events that clearly illustrate the sort of things to expect when the wheels of judicial bureaucracy start grinding. Read the article here."

Sticking up for common sense in the Great White North. Ant writes "http://www.globeandma il.com/gam/National/20000812/USOLDN.html Victoria -- The U.S. manufacturers of Soldier of Fortune are launching a legal battle over an unprecedented British Columbia ruling classifying the graphic computer game as an adult motion picture. Activision Inc. announced yesterday it will appeal the decision by B.C.'s provincial director of film classification that restricts minors under 18 from renting and selling the CD-ROM game. The Canadian distributor of the game, Beamscope Canada, has also filed an appeal with B.C.'s Motion Picture Appeal Board."

Well, it's not a law of nature, fellas. Ian01 writes "Here is an article from MIT's Tech Review magazine about how Moore's Law is false." Well, "false" is a little strong a word for as loose an idea as Mr. Moore's -- errr, "conjecture" -- but isn't it nice to see things keep getting smaller faster and cheaper?

Lars Lars Lars Lars Lars Lars Lars Obiwan Kenobi writes: "As quoted from the Q Online article: 'Napster's number one critic Lars Ulrich - who can barely contain his pleasure at seeing the file sharing company in strife - has done a U-turn. The Metallica drummer's business, the no-brainer monikered The Music Company, will promote work from its artists online at www.theMusicCom.com. And users will be able to sample one of the artists, Goudie through MP3 downloads on the band's official site, which it linked through The Music Company site.'

Dudn't it just seem...you know...ironic?"

While Lars hawking online music may seem ironic at first blush, reading the words he spoke to slashdot a few moons ago, it's not that surprizing at all. Metallica, after all, has long allowed fans to bootleg their concerts, and as Lars said, "So of course there will be at some point -- we are not stupid, of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet. But the question is, on whose conditions, and obviously we want it to be on our conditions." Now at some level, doesn't that strike a chord?

Comments

The end of Moore's 'law'?

[Idaho]

There are plenty of articles like this, from years ago. Every time again people say 'it won't be possible to make it much faster, because we are at the limits of nature'.

Then, one month after I buy a new computer, one that is about twice at fast comes out ;-)

OTOH, now even M$ can't come up with Windows/Office versions slow enough to justify a GHz computer for desktop use, there may just be no very large market need for faster processors at the moment.

Guess I am wrong, am i???? :-)

Canada 101: Why You May Be Offended In The USA

[WillAffleck]

OK, now I now all the libertarians are going to get upset over British Columbia calling a CD game a "motion picture" and labelling it, but ...

Look, in the US society supports individual rights over those of societal rights. So long as noone bugs us too much, you can do pretty much what you want, sue whomever you want, and that's just the way it is.

In Canada, however, societal rights are regarded as more important than individual rights. This extends even to sports - it's not as much about the individual as it is about the team. All of Canada's heroes (and I mean ALL of them) tend to be modest about their own personal acheivements, say how it was a team effort, and (amazing, this) believe it.

So, the concept that the law can decide to shut down the sale of games that may cause teen violence is totally legit in a Canadian context, whereas in the US it's an alien concept. This doesn't mean there aren't regional variations - B.C. is less Blue than Ontario, Quebec is more open to this (so long as you speak French), and hey Newfoundland is just glad you paid attention to them, since they are the most wired province.

So, forget about all the posts you'll read today by Yanks about individual liberties and censorship - it's Canada and you're just going to have to deal with the fact that they have different values than Americans and even a slightly different legal system. Did you know they appoint their judges and cops? Not elect them (Yanks elect sherrifs and judges), appoint them.

Here endeth the lesson.

(yeah, so I lived half my life in Canada and half in the States, so?)

Re:Canada 101: Why You May Be Offended In The USA

[Evangelion]

Holy missing the point, Batman.

So, the concept that the law can decide to shut down the sale of games that may cause teen violence is totally legit in a Canadian context...

This isn't about 'causing teen violence'. It's about classifying a product as unfit for people under 18. Period.

Listen - Raven set out to make the most disturbing, graphically violent game possible. (including keeping track of how many times you kill enemies by shooting them in the groin, and about every other concievable way to focus the game on the act of graphical and brutal slayings).

Now they're pissed that someone agrees with them - that the game isn't suitable to be sold to children.

Talk about a bunch of whiners - they set out to do something, and are now complaining when thier own actions bite them in the ass.

--

Re:Canada 101: Why You May Be Offended In The USA

[Chasuk]

Look, in the US society supports individual rights over those of societal rights. So long as noone bugs us too much, you can do pretty much what you want, sue whomever you want, and that's just the way it is.

I disagree. In US society, prostitution is illegal, recreational drug use is illegal, professed public atheism can make you a pariah (you can belong to any religion you want in the US, as long as it is Xtianity), the practice of homosexuality is illegal in many states (and verboten in the military), the use of alcohol is forbidden until the age of 21, the state dictates that you must wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, there are no nipples allowed in US tabloids (oh, the pain and suffering caused by a perky tit!), and anti-intellectualism is rife (this haven of geekdom aside - and, of course, I know there are other exceptions).

Each and every one of those restrictions violate my individual rights. Every country restricts some of the behaviors listed above, and some restrict all of them. However, my point is that the US is _not_ the sole claimant to the title "land of the free and home of the brave," despite what some of its more insular residents might think.

And, yes, I _am_ a US citizen, but I lived overseas for approximately 15 years (in many diverse locations), so I do know, firsthand, what I am talking about.

No, I don't need examples of places that are worse, as I've been to those places, too.

Re:Canada 101: Why You May Be Offended In The USA

[Mr. Slippery]

Too many people pass the buck and say "Well, parents should do this on their own. We don't need the government to do it for us." Excuse me, but can we expect every parent to do the job we hope they will do?

It's not a question of the job "we hope they will do" - I, after all, hope all parents will raise their children to be leftist pagan vegan treehuggers. It's a question of doing the job they signed up for - responsbily raising their children. And yes, we can expect - nay, demand - that they do it. If they can't, then there is due process of law to intervene and possibly even take the kids away; but up to that point, the state should keep its grubby hands off.

It's not up to the legislature to decide what ANYONE, child or adult, gets to see or read. That is 100% out of the rightful provence of government; and I weep for any nation that doesn't understand that.

Re:Productivity race...

[Goonie]

At one point or another the IT department will say "at long last, after thirty years of hard work, there is no obvious process left to computerize".

I wonder how far off that point is, particularly when you throw the effect of the Net in. My father was in the office equipment industry (what was photocopiers, but is now more and more about what are essentially high-speed laser printers), and there are many, many business processes that haven't seen technology applied effectively yet. A small for-instance:

A customer rings the dealership to report a fault. The service manager at the dealership then allocates (using rules of thumb rather than anything more sophisticated) a technician to attend the call. A fault report is given to the technician if they are at the dealership, otherwise the message is passed on by mobile phone (which is a drastic improvement on earlier days). The technician then discovers that a machine requires a certain part, they call the dealership on a cellphone, who checks the computer to find out whether the part is in stock. If it is, we're in luck.

If not, the dealership then faxes a handwritten order form to the manufacturer to order the part. When the next batch of parts comes from the manufacturer, the part numbers are entered (by hand) into the computer, and if a part turns out to be the one that the technician needs, they are then notified verbally or by phone. When the problem is fixed, the technician either fills out a handwritten report form which is handed to the service manager for entry in to the computer, or types it in themselves from the notes they took (or memory).

Can you see room for improvement here with a bit of intelligent technology application? Just as importantly, is a slowdown in Moore's law going to make any difference?

IMHO, even if Moore's Law ran out of steam tomorrow (which it won't), there's still plenty of potential productivity improvements out there from IT yet to be realised.

In other news...

[Idaho]

British Columbia recently prohibited the game Leisure Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, classifying the high qaulity graphic computer game as an adult motion picture.

Then you wake up and are glad to live in the Netherlands.
Some time ago VVN - a national traffic safety organisation tried to prohibit Carmageddon here, but the judge did not allow that to happen!

Bootleg Metallica Concerts

[DanMcS]

Metallica, after all, has long allowed fans to bootleg their concerts
Um, I was just at their makeup show in Kentucky, last wednesday. There were very prominent signs, obviously put up for that event, which proclaimed that no recording equipment of any kind was allowed inside the arena. So I'm not sure what kind of bootlegging they think they are allowing, unless I'm supposed to remember how it went and sing it back after I get home.
--

Convention Protests

[Boiler99]

I fully appreciate the right to free speech in America, and protests are part of that. I'm sure there was a lot of "non-productive" (read: drunken, "hey lets break stuff", fun but ineffective protests) going on, but to watch the news that would be all you'd think of it.

I was watching Headline News' coverage of the protests in LA this week...all they showed were teenagers throwing bottles and getting the rubber bullets they deserved. That's it though...no one protesting real issues. I KNOW real issues were being addressed, but the media chooses not to cover it because it's not that interesting to the general public...shooting people with tear gas apparently is...

I wish the media would use their power to cover things that are important instead of the movie-style violence at these conventions, just like the police should use their powers to arrest real trouble makers instead of people who just look like trouble :) Maybe people would actually start to become interested in issues that affect their every day lives and become educated voters instead of partisian zombies.

Re:Convention Protests

[Arandir]

I KNOW real issues were being addressed, but the media chooses not to cover it

Apparently, neither do the protestors! I know what the Million Man March was about, and what the Million Mom March was about, and even what the ragtag Operation rescue bunches on the street corners are about, but near as I can figure the protestors just want to protest for the sake of protesting.

Case in point: Emmett's story about how he provoked a cop and got arrested. Not once in his account did he mention why he was protesting or what he was protesting about. Yesterday at LWCE he was bragging to people how he got arrested, but he still didn't state why he was protesting.

Re:Convention Protests

[mistah_monkey]

Well, it's not a surprise, really.

I've learned from many sites, in particular, The Daily Howler, that the news media isn't interested in the real deal when it comes to politics, especially.

There was recently a criticism in the above mentioned site, of a NYT columnist who spoke of Al Gore's press conferences as "boring" because all he talked about was health care, and other "boring" things like what he wants to do if he's elected president. In contrast, George Bush's press conferences are "fun", because GeeDubyah makes jokes, gives the press guys cute nicknames, talks about golf, and what they all did over the weekend.

What does this illustrate? It illustrates that reporters are not the hard-boiled "get down to the truth" types that they would like themselves portrayed as. Rather, they are like bored teenagers, who'd rather go watch a riot or talk about parties than watch some boring press conference about something so dry as health care, or the genuine concerns of people protesting at the conventions.

Note that many reporters don't get degrees in journalism, but usually communications. Working in the news media is a stepping stone to taking a position in a PR firm usually.

Productivity race...

[Alomex]

One economist researched productivity gains in the 80's from computer purchases and found there were none. This has become known as the productivity paradox, and is now accepted mantra in popular culture, as well as some academic circles. Let us consider the example of a department store I happen to be familiar with. Sometime around the late 70's they became fully computerized in their accounting department. At that time they let go a staff of 40 accountants and over 100 clerks.

The productivity gains are obvious: 140 people taking home a combined $5M a year in wages replaced with a computer system costing $1M. So why did these productivity gains do not show in the bottom line (and thus in the economist study)?

Simple, it turns out that once the accounting system was installed, the managers didn't just sit back and wait until the savings rolled in. To the contrary. They noticed the gains and told their IT people "wow! the savings are enormous. Is there any other such savings lying around?".

The IT people replied "indeed, we could computerize your point-of-sales registers, manage your inventory and payroll as well as upgrade your accounting package to have better tracking of overdue accounts and many other such things".

To which the managers replied "take this $4M dollars we just saved, and go get more programmers, software and hardware so you can carry on!". The savings from these were again reinvested into more programs and more hardware. Further creating more savings and more reinvestment. As you can imagine, this cannot go on forever. At one point or another the IT department will say "at long last, after thirty years of hard work, there is no obvious process left to computerize".

That day the company stops replacing computers and software every year and moves to a slower replacement, upgrade and development cycle. Suddenly there are all these savings that start hitting the bottom line and we go from a "productivity paradox" to the "surprising productivity gains of the new economy".

There is truly no reason to be surprised about either of the two phenomena, as long as you understand the concept of reinvesting 100% of your productivity gains.

Not suitable for minors != Censorship

[xtal]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian

At first glance I was against this.. but then I got to thinking; People that aren't 18 or 19 in this country can't drink Alcohol, (legally). Minors can't rent or buy hardcore porn, or porn of any sort from what I can tell.. Not that it's hard to get by any means. So what's different about slapping a Restricted sticker on a video game? Adults can still buy it, hell, they can buy it for their kids if they want. The lack of standards is kinda worrysome - what constitutes excessive violence - but it's not like the game was banned. (Unless I'm mis-informed over here on the East Coast.)

Those of you who think Canada is socialist / commie should look at your drug and drug testing laws before calling the kettle black. Canada's laws make a great deal more sense IMHO. The post about Canadians valuing the rights of society above was bang on. We believe in Common Sense (tm) up here. There are cops that are assholes here like anywhere else, but for the most part, they're reasonable, as are the judges. Reasonable people that expect to be treated reasonably, I think is a good summary. Tim Horton's for all!

Here's to high taxes and 5 hour hospital waits! *sarcasm*

What about running SoF dedicated servers?

[jailbrekr2]

Assuming of course that you *can* run SoF as a dedicated Internet game server, what would be the law surrounding having one in BC?

I for one am greatly interested, as I am in the process of starting up a gaming site w. several game servers.........

Would we need to use Adult Check?

Just a thought.....

NO.

[xant]

No. Fighting back is not protesting. Your battle isn't with the police, regardless of how good or how lax they are at their job. You're there to shout about the issues and get the issues on camera. If, somehow, everyone protesting was peaceful, then MAYBE the cameras would focus on the signs and the reasons for the protest rather than the morons trying to get a billy club to the neck. I don't care if you're there to legitimately protest or not, you don't fight back against the police. If they arrest you for just being there, so much the better - now you're a legitimate martyr. Gandhi didn't free India by kicking someone's ass.

More news from lotusland

[dschl]

As a side note to the Soldier of Fortune rating, BC Ferries (Crown Corporation which operates almost all ferries in British Columbia, including those from Vancouver to Vancouver Island) announced that they would be removing all "violent" video games including "hand-held guns" (direct quotes from Minister Responsible for BC Ferries, Joy McPhail, as heard on CBC's afternoon show yesterday on my drive home).

What about games where you can hold a knife in your teeth? Would they be OK? Is a rocket launcher on a character's shoulder acceptable?

Why 18 = not(SoF)

[DiS[EnDeR]]

From my understanding of this topic, all that the BC regulators did was look at the realistic violence portrayed in the game SoF and say

"I dont think kids should be able to purchase this independant of an adult giving them permission."

So what they did was look at how they could legally prevent underage citizens (read: kids) from the purchase and found a Motion Picture rating of 'R' would do the trick.

This is a good thing. Games like SoF should be regulated and kept away from the paws of the "underage". We do the same with graphic movies, and porn, alchohol, driving, smoking, and voting (the most dangerous of all). The restriction now allows parents to have some control over the content that their child is exposed to. If the parents think their child is mature enough and stable enough (read: doesnt fry hamsters in the microwave anymnore) then they can decide to buy it for them.

This is my first post after reading slashdot daily for 6 months. My name is Ryan, and I AM CANADIAN - (ps. to the guy who likes Molsons, your damn skippy we keep the good stuff)

BC politics suck

[tbo]

I live in BC, and I've played Soldier of Fortune, so this is particularly relevant to me.

I've seen lots of movies that were a lot more graphic than SoF and got a lesser rating from the BC Film Classification Board. I'm sure this is due to political pressure from various groups, not any real logical or consistent decision by the film board.

One question, though. Why was SoF ever even submitted to or looked at by the Film Classification Board? Smells like political foul play. Guess that's what one should expect in a province where unions run the government.

Re:BC politics suck

[Snocone]

Why was SoF ever even submitted to or looked at by the Film Classification Board?

Let us rephrase this in generic terms.

"Why did a government bureaucracy of essentially static responsibility and budget decide to attempt to aggrandize more jurisdiction and authority unto itself?"

Hmmmm. I wonder. Yes, I do. Snort.

No need to look for Evil Plans or Grand Designs here, I think ... just the natural tendency of any cancer^H^H^H^H^H^H government bureaucracy to entrench itself and extend its power and influence. For the sake of the children, naturally...

Appealing the decision is common sense?

[vertical-limit]

This may sound a bit strange, but I think that the Soldier of Fortune ruling is actually good for the gaming industry. Right now, the biggest problem facing the industry is the perception that games are still "toys" for kids -- the gaming industry actually makes more money than the movie industry, and yet it's never taken seriously by any mainstream media. Why not? Because everyone thinks back to the Atari and Nintendo 2600 days and remembers all games as being "for kids." The Soldier of Fortune ruling more firmly establishes the idea that there are games that are targetted at adults, not kids.

This isn't really a free speech issue -- the game isn't being banned or censored; it's simply kept out of the hands of minors. Is this really such an odd idea? Nobody questions the concept that you have to be 17 to get into an R-rated movie -- everyone understands that's just the way things work. And yet when anyone tries to apply the same concept to games, all the screaming banshee gamers throw a huge temper tantrum. Just because 13-year-olds can play violent games right now doesn't mean that they have the right to. The game industry is maturing from a kid-targeted money machine to a more traditional, artistic form of media, and it's hardly bizarre for the regulations governing it to mature at the same time.

If gamers want to be taken seriously, we need to acknowledge that not all games should be played by everyone. Soldier of Fortune is a very violent game, and if I had kids, I wouldn't want them playing it. By clinging to the notion that all games should be available for everyone, we're forcing developers to only create games that can be sold to anyone -- i.e., kid-friendly games. With a ratings system in place, game manufacturers have the freedom to develop games for any age level, knowing that they'll be rated appropriately and no one can complain that iD and Sony are trying to sell violence to kids.

Re:Canadians

[technos]

Why is 'American' beer so weak? Because unlike the alcohol-responsible nations of the world, we drink incessantly. One beer after another, hour after hour. So we've reduced the alcohol content to the point where one can drink beer like cola and still maintain a semblance of control.

Me, I'll kick back with a few nice European imports and let my fellow countrymen consume their weak swill three times as fast.

Re:Mostly correct, thank you. (A Canadian POV)

[pen]

These pervs^H^H^H^H^H people could be attacked, their houses burned etc. If that's not "individual rights over the collective" I don't know what is. I personally would be happy to see them castrated and hung, but that's not the way a civilized society works and I accept that, because ultimately it protects me too - what if someday, somebody thinks (wrongly of course) that I molested their child?.

This has happened in England a week or two ago. A tabloid took justice into its own hands, and published the names of convicted sex offenders. As a result, mobs of "vigilantes" gathered and terrorized these supposed sex offenders and pedophiles. In some cases, houses were burned down, and people were badly injured or even killed. Of course, this didn't prevent a "few" (almost half of the cases) innocent people being hurt, at least one of them being driven to suicide, where either a person's name was similar to or the same as that of a convicted sex offender, a person was merely accused of the crime and not convicted, or the person was otherwise merely suspected of being a "bad guy".

But that doesn't matter, right? As long as we get those evil bad guys, what does it matter if a few innocent people get hurt in the process?

--