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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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...