Slashdot Mirror


Legal Trouble For MMOs In Australia

Zonk tips a story at Massively that has uncovered a potential legal controversy in Australia where some MMOs are concerned. Under Australian law, all games require a formal rating to be sold. Due to an oversight, many MMOs do not carry such a rating, yet they have been sold since release without anyone realizing the problem. "According to the Act, selling a single copy of an unclassified game attracts a penalty of AU$27,220.80 or two years. Selling unclassified games in commercial quantities (50 or more) can have a much steeper schedule of penalties, and additional penalties apply to advertising unclassified material, or simply omitting the correct ratings labels on the merchandise. ... publishers and distributors at some point misunderstood their obligations with respect to MMOG classifications in Australia, and operated under the belief that no such rating was required here." Reader Clomer points out that this has been brought to the attention of the Australian media, so hopefully the issue will be resolved soon.

207 comments

  1. Pisses me by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want. Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Adults should be free to buy whatever weapons they want. Requiring licenses and waiting periods is just tyranny by another name.

      Adults should be free to buy whatever drugs they want. Banishing marijuana and LSD is just oppression by another name.

      Wow, this is a ridiculous comparison. Maybe they should outlaw cars too? They kill and hurt a lot more people than games do.

      How about we outlaw stairs? Single story buildings ONLY. Stairways kill and hurt more people than games do!

      While we're at it, let's outlaw solid food. People choking on solid foods have a higher mortality rate than people playing a video game.

    2. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right!

    3. Re:Pisses me by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would those adults that should be free to buy whatever they want be the ones who are over 18 and hence generally (unless some countries have odd certificates/classifications) both old enough to be considered adults and old enough to buy any game because the classifications stop at 18?

      "It's terrible censorship that games and movies have ratings that stop at 18, thereby not stopping anyone 18 years old or older (who at that age is considered to be an adult) from watching or buying them"!

    4. Re:Pisses me by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      `Wow, this is a ridiculous comparison. Maybe they should outlaw cars too? They kill and hurt a lot more people than games do.`

      I mean, its not as if you need to have a license to drive or anything like that.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:Pisses me by powerspike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      welcome to Australia, we have 7 people all required to say new to change the ratings system, one of them currently in a religious nut, so won't even allow a r rating, so that's not going to be changed any time soon. How does this affect you, well publishers are dumbing down games to get past the 16+ rating in Australia, i believe the last one was fallout3, but alot of major titles are doing it...

    6. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want. Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

      No, it's not, and conflating the two is extremely counter-productive.

      Not all media purchasers are adults. Not all adult media purchasers are purchasing the media for their own use. A ratings system is they so they are able to make *educated decisions* about what it is they are purchasing. A ratings systems - in and of itself - does not prevent an adult from buying anything they want.

      Now, a ratings system might have a "Not Rated" or "Illegal" rating that means no-one is allowed to sell anything that is rated as such, however, that is simply a problem with the individual ratings system, not with the entire concept. Australia has such a problem, in that there is no "R" equivalent for games. This doesn't mean all the other ratings given out to games are meaningless or pointless.

      Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.

    7. Re:Pisses me by wisty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep, Australia is turning into a nanny state. I wonder how they will deal with MMORPGs though? Can't the publishers dynamically update quests and monsters? I can think of all sorts of ways this could be used to work around the ratings systems.

    8. Re:Pisses me by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want...

      Yeah! Bring back Lawn Darts!

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    9. Re:Pisses me by Nuskrad · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem in Australia is that their classifications consider some things unsuitable even for an 18/Adults Only rating, and so refuse classification, which means the product can't legally be sold, even to adults.

    10. Re:Pisses me by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      And in the case of games, anything deemed not suitable for a 15 year old is banned.

      There is no R18+ rating for games.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Huh?

      Guns are a different matter because they require skill to handle properly, and because they're dangerous if NOT handled properly. It's not a matter of restricting what you can do but rather a matter of protecting everyone else; whether you agree or not, similar things cannot be said about computer games.

      As for drugs, many people are of the opinion that there is indeed no justification for banning them. If somebody wants to ruin their own body, let them; personally, I couldn't care less about whether someone's drug of choice is alcohol, tobacco, Mary Jane or whatever. (And LSD is not even a drug in the usual sense of the word: it's psychoactive, and quite possibly dangerous, but not actually addictive.)

    12. Re:Pisses me by mog007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, a ratings system might have a "Not Rated" or "Illegal" rating that means no-one is allowed to sell anything that is rated as such, however, that is simply a problem with the individual ratings system, not with the entire concept.

      The distinction between something being at the highest or "worst" rating and being unclassified is akin to censorship. Watch the movie "This film is not yet rated." It shows how the MPAA is censoring films that it doesn't agree with, and that's in the United States with a non-public controlled rating system. At least when a film gets hit with NC-17 here, they can sell the film on the internet, or change it a little bit, call it unrated, and have no problems getting it to be sold at a store.

      Stores are afraid to stock NC-17 titles, because they're usually associated with porn. The problem with Australia's method is that the board that makes the rating decision could, someday soon, decide that a game is sending the message that the Aussie government is evil, and refuse it classification.

      Now, you won't get arrested for having the game yet, but you can't even buy the unrated version like you can here in the US. It IS censorship by another name, and if you believe otherwise, the spin doctoring that the Australian government is doing seems to be working its magic.

    13. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.

      Nonsense.

      You can't trust any single organisation to condense a complex game / movie / whatever into a single number, telling you the minimum age for which it is appropriate. Opinions on what is appropriate will vary wildly from person to person.

      If consumers want to make educated decisions, they'll actually have to educate themselves. Read the back of the box, read a review or two online. But don't expect a single number on the box to tell you what's okay for your child.

      My problem with ratings is, ANY ratings system is arbitrary, but simply by existing, it stifles creativity.

    14. Re:Pisses me by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean, its not as if you need to have a license to drive or anything like that.

      So the suggestion is that there should be a licence to play games? What exactly would they test? Shows no increased sign of wanting to kill people after playing Doom for an hour? Unless that's your proposal then your counter to the OP makes no sense at all.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    15. Re:Pisses me by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want...

      Yeah! Bring back Lawn Darts!

      god forbid kids toys reflect real-world dangers.

      If your kid is incapable of hurting himself with the toys he owns, he will not learn proper self-restraint.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    16. Re:Pisses me by Kharny · · Score: 1

      So true, i must have cut myself a few times with my swiss army knife before my dad's knifesafety rules made sense ;D

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
    17. Re:Pisses me by senorpoco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want" That is why ratings are there, to protect non adults from inappropriate content.

    18. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The distinction between something being at the highest or "worst" rating and being unclassified is akin to censorship. Watch the movie "This film is not yet rated." It shows how the MPAA is censoring films that it doesn't agree with, and that's in the United States with a non-public controlled rating system.

      Er, you sound surprised, but this is exactly the kind of result that would be expected from a privately (or "industry") -run ratings system. They have movies to sell, after all, so it pays well to come up with ways of excluding movies that they don't derive an income from.

      Stores are afraid to stock NC-17 titles, because they're usually associated with porn. The problem with Australia's method is that the board that makes the rating decision could, someday soon, decide that a game is sending the message that the Aussie government is evil, and refuse it classification.

      Which will be very quickly reported on and general public outrage will fix the problem.

      I would trust our Government-funded, but independent, ratings board (and its publicly disclosed membership and standards) for objective and reasonable ratings long, long, long before I would trust any group of media companies attempting to do the same.

      Now, you won't get arrested for having the game yet, but you can't even buy the unrated version like you can here in the US. It IS censorship by another name, and if you believe otherwise, the spin doctoring that the Australian government is doing seems to be working its magic.

      Censorship is the active banning of material, it also means it is illegal to own the material.

      Refusing classification because the rating system lacks a suitable rating even though one exists for identical content in other media is a minor lacking in the ratings system.

      If you think the two are identical then you're just trying to use paranoia to sensationalise the real problem which, as I said previously, is extremely counter-productive.

    19. Re:Pisses me by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      If your kid is incapable of hurting himself with the toys he owns, he will not learn proper self-restraint.

      Yes, but if he is capable of hurting himself with the toys he owns, he may not make it to adulthood. OK, my original post wasn't a fair comparison, but I just wanted to point out that usually laws exist for good reasons.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    20. Re:Pisses me by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0

      Or people using drivers licenses to cut lines of coke.

    21. Re:Pisses me by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The lawn darts were a bit extreme but I have to agree.
      There seems to be more and more of an obsession with stopping kids from hurting themselves in any way at all.
      I hate to imagine how dull my childhood would be if I had it over now, when did letting kids climb trees go out of fashion?
      When did playing with candels and matches(where it wouldn't burn down the house) become a sin?
      I went through scouts and now help out the local group occasionally and it's as if most of the kids these days reach the age of 12 without ever touching a box of matches or climbing a tree.

    22. Re:Pisses me by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not just say that anything NOT rated has a de-facto rating of "adults only" or something like that? That way, unrated MMO's really would be rated. Everyone's happy. Except Aussies who lose liberty every year.

    23. Re:Pisses me by germ!nation · · Score: 1

      This is possibly the stupidest thing I've read on /.

      Are there ratings that stop adults buying things? Do things that don't exist get rated?

    24. Re:Pisses me by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      Beside the point. "Under Australian law, all games require a formal rating to be sold. Due to an oversight, many MMOs do not carry such a rating, yet they have been sold since release without anyone realizing the problem." This is not about protesting censorship, this is about a dumbass move. Oversight? An MMO is a video game, video games require a ratings label, a label was not applied (that is the law right now, whether anyone agrees with it or not)...stupid.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    25. Re:Pisses me by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      it's the "it's for your own good" mentality.
      You see what happens is that your mother(well someones mother) votes for someone who promises to force you to stay on the straight and narrow and make sure you eat your broccoli.

    26. Re:Pisses me by Atreide · · Score: 1

      Not all media purchasers are adults. Not all adult media purchasers are purchasing the media for their own use.

      Besides, some adults
      do not want to watch/play with some material.

      For instance
      I am not interested in horror films or games.

      To take original post words
      I would be "pissed of"
      if a game ellusively introduced such material.

      Some would argue
      I have to read games reviews before I buy,

      why should I do that ?
      Instead of simply pick up a game
      and being confident
      the game won't bring subjects
      I don't want to see
      or I don't want my kids to see ?

      If I am ok to play "Need for Speed"
      I might not be to play GTA

      --
      The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then :-(
    27. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't trust any single organisation to condense a complex game / movie / whatever into a single number, telling you the minimum age for which it is appropriate.

      Not to mention, it is good for minors to see inappropriate things at times. I would classify most news broadcasts about wars and terror as inappopriate, but I think it is very very appropriate for minors to hear about 9/11 and Iraq and the torture sessions at Gitmo. Children should not be shielded from reality, they should only be taught to deal with it.

    28. Re:Pisses me by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      condense a complex game / movie / whatever into a single number

      Yes you can.

    29. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want. Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

      What other name is that? Seems to me like it's just "censorship." Period.

    30. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.

      When they are used only informatively, this is correct.

      When there are laws connected to the ratings, preventing unrated games from being sold, and the same group can refuse to rate, it is censorship. The government is deciding what can and cannot be expressed. There's no other word for it, and no equivocation is going to make it not the case.

    31. Re:Pisses me by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Wow, this is a ridiculous comparison. Maybe they should outlaw cars too? They kill and hurt a lot more people than games do."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection

      "How about we outlaw stairs? Single story buildings ONLY. Stairways kill and hurt more people than games do!"

      http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/buildingregulations/

      "While we're at it, let's outlaw solid food. People choking on solid foods have a higher mortality rate than people playing a video game."

      http://www.fda.gov/

      You were saying?

    32. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      The question is not whether adults are allowed to buy the games or not. The ratings are there not to restrict games, but to inform adults (including parents) as to what content a game has before they purchase it. Nothing wrong with that.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    33. Re:Pisses me by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever weapons they want. Requiring licenses and waiting periods is just tyranny by another name.

      Adults should be free to buy whatever drugs they want. Banishing marijuana and LSD is just oppression by another name.

      Yup, people as high as a kite, or drunk as a skunk, should be able to buy firearms - preferably automatic weapons - at any time of the day or night. In fact, we should create a place for all these 'freedom-loving' people, oh wait, it already exists!
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5066860.stm

    34. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      First off... that's your problem. Just because YOU might not want to play it doesn't mean it needs to be banned so that others who do cannot. If you are, ostensibly, an adult, then cope.

      Secondly, the enter key is not punctuation.

    35. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not in Australia. Gov's refusal to rate == ban, from adults and non-adults alike.

    36. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      As an Aussie, I can say that I haven't lost any liberty, but I have been informed as to what content games, movies and the like have before any purchase so I can decide for myself what I want to watch or play. Simple.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    37. Re:Pisses me by hansamurai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shouldn't being an adult be enough "license" to play or watch whatever you want?

    38. Re:Pisses me by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 4, Funny

      Guns [snip] because they're dangerous if NOT handled properly

      They're also quite dangerous if they are handled properly. That's the point of them, isn't it?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    39. Re:Pisses me by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Censorship is the active banning of material, it also means it is illegal to own the material.

      Refusing classification because the rating system lacks a suitable rating even though one exists for identical content in other media is a minor lacking in the ratings system.

      If you think the two are identical then you're just trying to use paranoia to sensationalise the real problem which, as I said previously, is extremely counter-productive.

      But by your own account, it is illegal to own unrated games, so that is state-sponsored censorship.

      I'm just finishing work on a mod for an RPG. The publishers of the RPG want to publish the mod, but want us to tone down some of the content in order to do so. This is because if they publish it it would push the classification of their game into 'Adults Only', which for commercial reasons they don't want. We probably aren't going to agree...

      I don't have any problem with our work being rated 'Adults only'. It is intended for adults. But I do have a problem with it being banned outright - that seems to me a dangerous intrusion into free speech.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    40. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      When there are laws connected to the ratings, preventing unrated games from being sold, and the same group can refuse to rate, it is censorship. The government is deciding what can and cannot be expressed. There's no other word for it, and no equivocation is going to make it not the case.

      There is a difference between not rating because no suitable rating exists, and not rating because the objective is to ban it.

      Conflating the two is neither valid, nor productive.

    41. Re:Pisses me by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Well that sucks then. My childhood foray in to matches involved burning an entire swamp, a big one, filled with bone dry reeds about 8 feet tall. That thing went up like a huge Roman candle in seconds, I'm thinking seriously cool at that time, though the two schools located just meters on either side did not share my outlook. I learned a very valuable lesson that day - the point at which ones own stream of urine can successfully extinguish a fire on a blustering hot and windy day is just a few seconds.

      I've never played with matches since.

    42. Re:Pisses me by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Which will be very quickly reported on and general public outrage will fix the problem.

      How will people know about it if it can't be released?

      And assuming they're anything like people in the US and UK, they wouldn't care anyway. I would say sheeple, but some might take offence.

      Refusing classification because the rating system lacks a suitable rating even though one exists for identical content in other media is a minor lacking in the ratings system.

      If it's really minor it'd be trivial to fix. Seems to me like there's deliberate intent to keep that bug (or is it a feature) in place. That would indeed be censorship.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    43. Re:Pisses me by MrNemesis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Video games, generally being an arbitrary collection of binary information (typically expressed by electron progression through [semi]conductive materials), have effectively zero mass and since the amount of kinetic energy inherent in any body is proportional to the square of the mass, you can only literally kill someone with a video game by using a localised black hole and/or particle accelerator to get the data to near the speed of light.

      Secondary effects, such as that of the media carrying the "static" copy of the data (usually a small circular device made of hydrocarbon polymers) offer limited offensive possibilities in the terms of discus-like protectiles, or fragmented discs used as makeshift knives (although, technically, the data is no longer intact and therefore cannot be truly defined as a still being a video game). Long term exposure to phosphors emanating from cathode ray tubes sometimes used to display the visual interpretation of the data have also been linked to melenomas and/or rhomboid iris syndrome.

      Hence, it seems reasonable to me that those of us who chose to travel ourselves around in disturbingly fast-moving piles of iron should have some mandatory skill at it. The worst casualty you're likely to get from computer games is someone who stoved their own head in after accidentally playing a copy of ET.

      In summary:
      Person with a six pack of beers in a 2-ton lump of steel travelling at 60mph == dangerous fucktard
      Person with a six pack of beers on a couch playing Mario Kart with his mates == non-dangerous

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    44. Re:Pisses me by el3mentary · · Score: 1

      However drugs have proven negative externalizes on third parties. As of yet there is no conclusive proof that games have any major negative affect on third parties, considering how poorly executed the studies into violence/video games links were.

      Every illegal or restricted drug has at least 1 major side effect from its taking e.g.
      Cannabis, Tobacco: Highly Carcinogenic 2nd hand smoke.
      Alcohol: Massive increases in the danger of driving
      LSD: Psychologically damaged people require medical attention which impacts the tax payer.
      Heroin: Dependent on the method of taking this ranges from spreading blood borne diseases think HIV/AIDS to second hand smoke again, to the burden on the family of the drug taker monetarily and psychologically.
      Crack/Cocaine: Unlike video games there is a strong link between crack and violence usually due to the addict being unable to afford to maintain the habit without turning to crime.

      I could go on.

      Anyway the point is that whereas drugs can have severe externalities and this is proven the link for video games is much lower.

      --
      I reject your reality and substitute my own.
    45. Re:Pisses me by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      If handled properly, they are pointed at pieces of paper or deer to be hunted whenever they are fired.

      What this really depends on is your definition of 'dangerous'.

    46. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is a difference between not rating because no suitable rating exists, and not rating because the objective is to ban it.

      Conflating the two is neither valid, nor productive.

      When the same group (government in this case) gets to create the ratings AND rate the games AND make the laws, that's clearly false. If no suitable rating exists, it is entirely in their power to create one. If they do not do not create a rating appropriate for "games where you impale babies on spikes," Occam's Razor says it's because they don't want to rate it == they want it illegal.

      I'm hoping they do create a rating for MMOs though... the Aussie guild in my alliance is a good bunch of guys.

    47. Re:Pisses me by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 0, Troll

      hmmm, a wikipedia article about emissions testing, a british site about building code (that doesnt mention stairs in the 3 minutes I looked), and an organization who spends most of its time dealing with poisonous/toxic substances. How compelling of an argument...

    48. Re:Pisses me by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't trust any single organisation to condense a complex game / movie / whatever into a single number, telling you the minimum age for which it is appropriate. Opinions on what is appropriate will vary wildly from person to person.

      If consumers want to make educated decisions, they'll actually have to educate themselves. Read the back of the box, read a review or two online. But don't expect a single number on the box to tell you what's okay for your child.

      I like the idea of rating various elements that would normally go into a rating, but separately. For example, separate ratings for sex, nudity, violence, and drug use. Provide facts for each category: do not rate it for an age group, but state what it has. For example, the nudity category might have "brief glimpses of a boob or two," "no nudity," or "this is porn." Violence could be "what your big brother did to you growing up," "gratuitous mowing down of Charleys with a machine gun," or "this is a movie about the pope."

      The problem with rating systems in general (so far) is people are relying on other people to dictate morals. When I see a movie is rated R, I am forced to rely on someone else's view of what people under the age of 17 should or should not see in a movie. It does not tell me, directly, what kind of cool stuff is in the movie. I learn so much more by listening to reviews, including word of mouth. Ratings alone, as they are in the U.S., are fairly worthless.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    49. Re:Pisses me by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      The biggest one being the players - they provide some of the content, and ... well, lets face it, someone using rather strong/graphic language isn't exactly uncommon in a multiplayer game.

    50. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in this instance?

    51. Re:Pisses me by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1
      How this got modded insightful is beyond me. A little misplaced righteous indignation perhaps?

      Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

      No, it's really not. Not even close.

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want.

      They are.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    52. Re:Pisses me by mog007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If history shows us anything, it's that once something is made illegal to sell, it doesn't take much effort to make it illegal to own.

      I'm sensationalizing it for a reason, and that reason is simply because censorship in ANY form is fucking wrong. And it's VERY wrong when it's being done by the government. This is censorship, plain and simple. The government is saying "no, the citizens aren't adult enough to make the decision to watch that, we're going to make the decision for them."

    53. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      But by your own account, it is illegal to own unrated games, so that is state-sponsored censorship.

      It's not illegal to own unrated media.

      And, again, "not rated" and "banned" are different in both execution and intent. One is a passive action, the other is an active one. It's like the difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder.

    54. Re:Pisses me by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      Looking into purchases is pretty much common sense, and taking an active interest in controling the videogames your children are exposed to is in my opinion good parenting. I'm not trying to trash you but wouldn't a rating system which allowed for more verbose explanations of content be more reasonable than expecting the world to hide all the big scary things from you?

    55. Re:Pisses me by flitty · · Score: 3, Informative

      This Link Seems to list all of the "liberties" you haven't been able to choose for yourself. From my side of the pond, this looks like a censorship black list, but that could just be me.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    56. Re:Pisses me by flitty · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It may not be illegal to OWN such media, but the summary above does seem to ban the selling of any unrated material

      Under Australian law, all games require a formal rating to be sold.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    57. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      How will people know about it if it can't be released?

      Possibly because various news rags would be all over it like a bad smell ?

      If it's really minor it'd be trivial to fix. Seems to me like there's deliberate intent to keep that bug (or is it a feature) in place. That would indeed be censorship.

      From a procedural perspective, it is trivial to fix. All they need to do is expand the current R and X ratings to encompass computer games as well as other media. There are lots of minor problems in the world that would be trivial to fix. That they are not is rarely indicative of government oppression.

      The problem in this particular example is not an active attempt to ban "adult" content, it's the pandering to a handful of conservative twats who can't get their heads around the idea that people other than 12 year old boys play computer games.

    58. Re:Pisses me by flitty · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe because you don't understand what's going on here.

      Are there ratings that stop adults buying things?

      Yes. You cannot sell unrated items in Austrailia, or you could be fined for doing so.

      Do things that don't exist get rated?

      How existential of you, but I don't get what this has to do with the story.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    59. Re:Pisses me by Lostlander · · Score: 1

      Refusing classification because the rating system lacks a suitable rating even though one exists for identical content in other media is a minor lacking in the ratings system.
      If you think the two are identical then you're just trying to use paranoia to sensationalise the real problem which, as I said previously, is extremely counter-productive.

      If you think that censorship can't happen simply by refusing to rate something you live if your own special world. How do you think drugs became illegal in the U.S. it all started with stamps and while we're on the subject lets go back a bit further we can see how require a special stamp aka a rating sticker can have damaging effects on all kinds of things.

    60. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If they do not do not create a rating appropriate for "games where you impale babies on spikes," Occam's Razor says it's because they don't want to rate it == they want it illegal.

      You have choices like apathy, incompetence and pandering to special interests, but the simplest explanation you can come up with for boobies and gore in computer games (when the same thing shown on IMAX screens is fine) not getting a rating is because the government is trying to ban them ?

      Clearly Occam's Razor needs some sharpening.

    61. Re:Pisses me by DisKurzion · · Score: 1

      Ok, counterpoint:

      In these examples, explain how a 3rd party is affected:
      Tobacco: Smoked at home, or outdoors away from crowds (regular air pollution is far worse)
      Cannabis: When vaporized or eaten
      Alcohol: Drank at home, and didn't go out to drive

      The long and short of it is that almost anything we do can have an affect on 3rd parties. But this stems from irresponsible usage of anything: drugs, video games, food, automobiles.

      The root cause is responsibility, not the substance. That's why we punish drunk drivers, not ban alcohol. The killer, not the gun.

      Banning drugs just leads to the creation of worse drugs, similar to how if we ban a weapon, a new weapon will be used to fill the void. If cocaine was available cheaply and legally...would crystal meth even exist? And I think we can agree that crystal meth is far more dangerous than cocaine.

    62. Re:Pisses me by Frigga's+Ring · · Score: 1

      Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.

      Rating systems are NOT good. They're bias opinions created by the person doing the rating. I don't need someone else to tell me for whom they think the media is appropriate. Tell us what's in it (violence, gore, nudity, drug use, etc) and let the buyer decide if it's appropriate.

    63. Re:Pisses me by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever drugs they want. Banishing marijuana and LSD is just oppression by another name.

      I know you're trolling, but... Exactly.

      I, as an adult, should have the right to do whatever I want to my body chemistry. Besides, cigarettes and alcohol are legal too.

    64. Re:Pisses me by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess that your "liberty" doesn't include buying Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, or Dead Space.

    65. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

      Not really. It's called censorship and there doesn't seem to be much pussy-footing around it.

      And it's what the people of Australia want. They want censorship. The best thing to do, is expand that censorship far beyond games until they are so miserable that they change their mind about it.

    66. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't be apathy. If that were the case, unrated games wouldn't be illegal for sale because they wouldn't care.

      Incompetence I'll grant as a possibility, but, George W Bush notwithstanding, mouth-breathers with room-temperature IQs tend to have trouble getting into high office. The level of incompetence would have to be staggering even by US Government standards[0], so that's not a particularly simple explanation.

      Pandering to special interests == they want it banned because they were bribed by those who want it banned. Doesn't mean they care about the game content at all, but they were paid to have their desires coincide with the interests in question. So that example coincides with what I said.

      Thus, my statement holds.

    67. Re:Pisses me by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Not all media purchasers are adults. Not all adult media purchasers are purchasing the media for their own use. A ratings system is they so they are able to make *educated decisions* about what it is they are purchasing. A ratings systems - in and of itself - does not prevent an adult from buying anything they want.

      And if the British government requires a rating system for pamphlets like "Common Sense," that doesn't prevent any colonists from getting the pamphlet. Just require labeling of subversion, so that if colonists don't want their children reading subversive pamphlets, then they'll be informed about what is subversive and what isn't.

      Ratings systems are _good_ and should be encouraged. They allow consumers to make educated decisions about their purchases and substantially deflate genuine pro-censorship arguments.

      (A little less sarcasm this time.) Actually, I really do agree with that, but that's because you phrased it so ridiculously generally. Ratings systems are good. Government-mandated ratings systems are bad. If some Australian wants to publish a list of their opinions about various games, I have no problem with that. I would even encourage anyone considering buying a game (or any other software) to search the net for reviews before making a decision. Where this all goes wrong, is that the Australian government is requiring a particular entity's opinion about the game, to be bundled with the game. What we're talking about at this stage, is far more than a mere "rating system."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    68. Re:Pisses me by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Could say the same thing about books.

    69. Re:Pisses me by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I would trust our Government-funded, but independent, ratings board (and its publicly disclosed membership and standards) for objective and reasonable ratings long, long, long before I would trust any group of media companies attempting to do the same.

      But the beauty of a media company group's ratings, is that you don't have to trust them. You can use anyone's ratings to select your movies. You would have to hate the whole human race to say there's no one out there you can trust. It's pretty damn easy to find film reviews, especially in the last 15 years.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    70. Re:Pisses me by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      They should just do what the ESRB does. "Online content may change game experience. Online content not rated." Admit there's not much they can do about it, and be done with it.

    71. Re:Pisses me by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When cases like this come up, I like to do this:

      Replace the word Games with the word Books. Games are an interactive story, so calling them books isn't a huge stretch.

      Now, re-read the story with the new words. Worried yet?

    72. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make it illegal to sell unrated games to minors. Why should it be illegal to sell an unrated game to an adult? If they're uncomfortable buying a game without someone's review of the content, they're capable of making that decision and not buying the game. If they do buy the game, they take the responsibility for dealing with the content.

    73. Re:Pisses me by Kayden · · Score: 1

      Who here over 25 didn't play with lawn darts growing up by throwing them strait up and running around trying to not get yourself impaled?

    74. Re:Pisses me by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want.

      They are.

      You really should consider reading the article.

    75. Re:Pisses me by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Hello troll, you got me to respond. Do you feel good about yourself. Feel free to masturbate now. So you are implying that posting links to three sites that concerns regulation in the three areas that the grand grand parent implied as not being regulated is a bad argument.

      about emissions testing

      Which if you don't pass gets your car banned. Sounds like on topic and correct to me

      a british site about building code (that doesnt mention stairs in the 3 minutes I looked)

      Good damn, you want a site about stair regulations specifically. Just how annoying can you get. Here you go, this time searching on stair regulations specifically instead of building regulations in general.

      http://www.the-wooden-hill-company.co.uk/staircase-building-regulations-c89.html

      organization who spends most of its time dealing with poisonous/toxic substances

      Including food.

      How compelling of an argument...

      Did you expect me to list three sites that said all cars, stairs and food is banned from this day on? Only a total idiot would expect that, but that is probably exactly what you are. Anyone with some common sense would see the links for what they really were. Evidence that the topics that the ggp posted about are indeed regulated unlike what was implied.

      Btw, to clarify. I don't agree with the Australian regulations. But talking like nothing else is regulated really don't make your case any more sound.

    76. Re:Pisses me by Kayden · · Score: 1

      Requiring ratings isn't censorship; it's classification. Refusing the sale of unclassified material is censorship-- especially when you have the power to both define and apply the classifications.

    77. Re:Pisses me by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      My point exactly (I made the same one below).

    78. Re:Pisses me by FredFredrickson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! What are you talking about? I'm a deer covered in peices of paper, you insensitive clod! I think they're mighty dangerous.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    79. Re:Pisses me by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Finally, somebody talking sense!

    80. Re:Pisses me by teknognome · · Score: 1

      The government (e.g. the ratings board) making it illegal to sell a video game (e.g. by refusing to rate it) is, by definition, censorship.

    81. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the suggestion is that there should be a licence to play games?

      No, the suggestion is that the quoted comparison is dumb. It is. At no point has anyone in this thread suggested requiring a licence to play games (except you). Actually, pretty much every post in this thread has been dumb, including this one.

    82. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A ratings system is they so they are able to make *educated decisions* about what it is they are purchasing.

      NO.

      A ratings system is so the retail store knows when not to sell games to someone's kid. You know, the irresponsible parents who hand a 12 year old a wad of cash & turn them loose, unsupervised, at the mall.
      A ratings system also provides the developer some legal coverage when the retail store sells something like GTA or Super Porn Brothers to someone's kids.

      As for parent's, a rating system is simply a tool for the Lazy or Incompetent which does the parenting FOR them. Keep track of what your kids are buying & playing and stop expecting other people to do it for you.

    83. Re:Pisses me by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Shhhh!! Do not give them any ideas!

    84. Re:Pisses me by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Can you buy an R18+ game?

      I'll answer that for you. No, your government doesn't let you.

    85. Re:Pisses me by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      From a procedural perspective, censorship is, indeed, easy to fix. Simply stop doing it.

      That doesn't make it not be censorship.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    86. Re:Pisses me by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Can't be apathy. If that were the case, unrated games wouldn't be illegal for sale because they wouldn't care.

      Er, no. Any unrated media (eg: films as well) is illegal to sell. Ergo, apathy applies quite well (they can't be bothered extending the R and X categories to cover games).

      Incompetence I'll grant as a possibility, but, George W Bush notwithstanding, mouth-breathers with room-temperature IQs tend to have trouble getting into high office. The level of incompetence would have to be staggering even by US Government standards[0], so that's not a particularly simple explanation.

      Incompetence fits because the situation exists in no small part due to fools who think games are for kids (so why on Earth would they need an "adult" category ?).

      Pandering to special interests == they want it banned because they were bribed by those who want it banned.

      No, pandering to special interests means they won't make an active attempt to change an existing situation to keep the conservative independent loonies happy to gain their support on other issues.

      The sort of nudge-nudge, wink-wink, "bribery" that is rife in American politics is still, thankfully, absent from Australia.

      Thus, my statement holds.

      Your Occam's Razor is still pretty dull.

    87. Re:Pisses me by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Did you just make the argument that games should not include content that you don't like?

      Are you a total moron, or a troll?

      Before anyone purchases any fictional material, they should check to see if it's the sort of thing they might enjoy. Um, duh. In fact, that's true of everything that's sold.

      In fact, we even assume children will be able to do this. The reason we have ratings for children isn't because they might stupidly buy content they don't like, but because their parents might not approve, and such content can, in theory, be harmful to them. It's not to keep them from buying stuff they'll end up not liking.

      Video games actually are much easier than many things to figure out, considering that many of them have free demos, and videos of gameplay, and almost always have dozens of reviews before they come out. Those reviews might not actually tell you if the game is any good, but they'll certainly tell you what sort of game it is.

      Whereas with movies, often reviews don't come out until after the movie does, and they often have misleading trailers.

      The only thing that we should require warning adults consumers about (as opposed to children, or adults purchasing for children) are actual health risks. Which in the case of video games are basically limited to possible triggers of epilepsy.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    88. Re:Pisses me by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct.

      Any parent using a rating system is a fool. It's a useful tool to let parents start with knowledge of a game, and in some cases that's enough...if your 14 year old wants to buy a G-rated (Or whatever the equiv is.) game, you can just let them. But you might want to check on the next level up. And if they show up with an 'R' game you'll need to go specifically go and find out why it got that rating and if you're okay with it.

      No, the point of the rating systems, the only reason they shouldn't be scrapped altogether, is to keep kids from buying the games without their parent's knowledge.

      And, no, that doesn't really require 'irresponsible' parents. No parent can keep track of how much money their children have if said children have any sort of allowance, and games get pretty cheap when they're a year old. And no parent can be 100% sure that their children will never have the opportunity to purchase said game, or just get a friend to buy it for them.

      And I know, in theory, that parents should monitor their children's computer use, and that works for 12 year olds, but not for kids who are old enough to, and do, stay home by themselves. There are levels of responsibility, and it's entirely likely that children would be trusted enough to do that, and yet their parents would still not like them playing GTA.

      Of course, it's a somewhat silly system, consider that kids just pirate the games. But whatever.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    89. Re:Pisses me by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Tobacco: Smoked at home, or outdoors away from crowds (regular air pollution is far worse)
            Eventually, that person's health will deteriorate, and my taxes will have to pay for the additional care required.

      Cannabis: When vaporized or eaten
              See above.

      Alcohol: Drank at home, and didn't go out to drive
              See above.

      Not saying that should be an argument against it, as lots of people do lots of things that cause their health to deteriorate, but, that is how a 3rd party is affected.

    90. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any rating system I've ever seen, it is. I've never seen anything outright banned. At most, 18+ stuff won't be carried in brick and mortar stores, but I hate the mall so I buy most video games online anyway.

    91. Re:Pisses me by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      The lawn darts were a bit extreme but I have to agree.

      what was extreme about them?

      Read the notice.

      How many kids have been killed by being struck with baseballs before or since? Baseball bats? Surely more than 3.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    92. Re:Pisses me by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      Whether it occurs intentionally or accidentally, it still boils down to censorship as the government through it's own action (or lack thereof) has made it illegal to sell certain games, based on their content. Censorship says nothing about willfully, or maliciously preventing the sale of something (although it is generally implied).

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    93. Re:Pisses me by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if he is capable of hurting himself with the toys he owns, he may not make it to adulthood.

      there's always that risk. parents need to learn to live with it or never eat steak in their homes again, or else they're hypocrites.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    94. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello troll, you got me to respond. Do you feel good about yourself. Feel free to masturbate now.

      Sir, yes sir! Masturbating now, sir!

    95. Re:Pisses me by brkello · · Score: 1

      And those paper are shaped like what? Guns were designed to kill things. You just practice on paper. Guns are dangerous because they make killing things easy. I am not saying take away guns, but to not label guns as dangerous is dumb. Just like labeling video games as dangerous is dumb.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    96. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's funny is that porn ISN't NC-17. Porn producers don't bother to get their product rated. They made their own rating XXX, and wear it with pride.

    97. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This. Also, let me remind you of the scientifically objective Crate Review System for videogames.

    98. Re:Pisses me by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      For sale. Reasonable rates.
      Banned in Australia?

      Chess
      Go.
      Tag.
      Red light green light.
      Mother May I
      Simon Says
      Old Maid
      Truth or dare
      Cops n Robbers
      Smear the.. I mean, Chase the Ball Around
      Cowboys and Aborigines
      Duck Duck Wallaby
      Go Fish

      Are each of these rated?

    99. Re:Pisses me by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So, net win for the rest of us either way.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    100. Re:Pisses me by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      > "Watch the movie "This film is not yet rated." It shows how the MPAA is censoring films that it doesn't agree with"

      I watched that documentary, and the entire time I kept thinking, the problem isn't that there's a rating system, it's that there's only one rating system. There's nothing wrong with having someone warn southern Christian parents that they might not find a movie appropriate for their kids because it contains content they'd object to, such as homosexuality. The problem is the stranglehold they have on movie producers to censor content from the marketplace for people who wouldn't necessarily find it offensive.

      We need at least several different rating boards and many distributors who will carry the various movies and games, so that no one small set of people gets to control what everyone else is exposed to.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    101. Re:Pisses me by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't understand. Somebody somewhere may be playing games that *they haven't approved of.* This is obviously unacceptable.

    102. Re:Pisses me by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Stores are afraid to stock NC-17 titles, because they're usually associated with porn. The problem with Australia's method is that the board that makes the rating decision could, someday soon, decide that a game is sending the message that the Aussie government is evil, and refuse it classification.

      Which will be very quickly reported on and general public outrage will fix the problem.

      My naivety meter just went through the roof. The past decade should be proof to anyone living in America that it's very easy to gradually introduce such outrageous ideas into the public's mindset, by starting with propaganda claims and studies linking material to crimincal activity, or crafting horrible laws that claim to fight terrorism.

      Look to the UK for an example of the prototypical police state in progress.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    103. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      I guess it never bothered me. I, like a large number of people here, have no desire to buy R18+ games. Who the hell are you to say what should or should not be available in Australia?

      We are Australians, not americans. We have our own culture and way of doing things and I, like a great number of Australians, support the ratings system. It is not perfect, but it does serve a role in our nation.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    104. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      I'll answer that for you. No, your government doesn't let you.

      We did elect them and successive governments over decades that have supported the ratings system.

      You can read your own conclusions.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    105. Re:Pisses me by ildon · · Score: 1

      Your complacency is allowing your government to deny the rights of those who would possibly want to play said R18+ game or unclassified movie/whatever.

      Only analogy I can easily come up with (and admittedly, it's not a very good one) is like allowing the Ku Klux Klan to exercise their right to free speech. Even if I think they're douchebags devoid of merit, they should still have the right to speak and publish books/movies/video games professing their opinion, and people should have the right to buy those items. You can classify them 18+ or whatever and only allow adults to purchase them if you like, but to make them "unclassified" and therefore illegal to sell (a.k.a. censorship) is immoral. Period.

      Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have the right to deny other people access to it, or to be silently complicit as your government denies other people the right to it.

    106. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those paper are shaped like what?

      Circles.

      Guns were designed to kill things.

      That's largely irrelevant. Computers were designed to simulate nuclear explosions, but we don't assume that everyone with a computer is potentially developing nuclear weapons.

      You just practice on paper.

      Plenty of people own guns who have no interest whatsoever in killing anything, not even in self defence. Had it escaped your notice that shooting is an Olympic sport?

      Guns are dangerous because they make killing things easy.

      No, guns are dangerous because they propel little bits of metal at extremely high velocity.

    107. Re:Pisses me by ildon · · Score: 1

      And Germans elected Hitler. </Godwin>

      Seriously though, just because you do it doesn't make it right.

    108. Re:Pisses me by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Very good. However, you have the option of, like in the USA. G - pretty much unoffensive to everybody. Ted Nugent might take offense at the potrayal of tasty Bambi, but everybody else is fine with it. R - We really recommend you think twice, maybe watch it by yourself before you expose your kids to it. X/NC17 - why are you even thinking about showing this to kids? Unrated - you take your own shot.

      However, the situation in Canada has no 'R' or 'X' rating equivalent for games, and games are not allowed to be sold unrated. Ergo, it's a round-about, yet effective, means of censorship for games. Simply refuse to rate the game, and it can't be legally sold in the country.

      The USA, at least, has both the option of an 'everything else' rating and going ahead and saying 'screw you guys, here it is, UNRATED!!!!'. Seriously, I think that they're deliberately releasing 'unrated' as selling points for DVDs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    109. Re:Pisses me by balzi · · Score: 0

      The American version of human rights is essentially a dressing up of the childish "don't tell me what to do"... but in any case, its irrelevant for this situation.

      The issue is not that the Aus govt. refused to classify the games, but that they weren't classified which is illegal - If they get classified, then everyone's happy again. (including the people who raised hell when their rights were disturbed)

      or maybe I'm wrong :)

      --
      "I split coffee all over my wife's nightie .... serves me right for wearing it" -Speelberg, no 'Spar
    110. Re:Pisses me by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't need a license to drive. You need a license to drive on PUBLIC ROADS. On private roads you can drive however fucking much you want.

    111. Re:Pisses me by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Guns are a fuck of a lot simpler than cars. The maximum amount of controls you'll find on a handgun are 7(Hammer, Trigger, Slide, Safety, Mag release, Laser sight/Scope, Flashlight switch) Of course, anyone actually carrying around a handgun with both laser sight and flashlight on it deserves to be bitchslapped, but that's another matter entirely. There require very, VERY little skill to handle properly, they just require you to pull your head out, something that the majority of humanity seems to be uncapable of doing.

    112. Re:Pisses me by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Um, 2nd hand smoke is not HIGHLY carcinogenic. It requires massive doses from prolonged exposure in order to have any large effect on a person's chances of getting cancer.

    113. Re:Pisses me by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      That's horseshit... plenty of movies get banned even though there are adult ratings for them.

    114. Re:Pisses me by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      And those paper are shaped like what?

      Well, from the movies I have seen, all the paper targets have been pretty much rectangular in shape.

      I might be seeing something that isn't there, but there seems to be a pattern with rectangular paper. Seems to be much more common than other shapes.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    115. Re:Pisses me by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Haha, you're the troll mr tooltard... you linked completely unrelated articles to discount someone else's comments.

      If you actually understood the points being made, you'd realise that your post is not only stupid, but offtopic.

    116. Re:Pisses me by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      So that person's taxes don't count? or are you taking the typical US pro-protectionism anti-social conscience stance?

    117. Re:Pisses me by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      And those paper are shaped like what?

      Not to discredit the sibling post, but typically they are shaped like rectangles. Sometimes squares. I suppose some could be found that are circles. If you wanted to get fancy, maybe you can get them shaped like triangles or heptagons. However, they will typically be a quadrilateral of some type.

      Won't someone think of the parallelograms and the innocent rhombi!?!

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    118. Re:Pisses me by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      That's a big reason why I like the kids-in-mind website. I go there even for movies I know only I'm going to watch. They have three categories: Sex/Nudity, Violence & Gore, and Profanity and assign them a number 1-10, 1 being the least and 10 being pretty graphic, but then they also have a bullet point list of the things that caused them to give it each category its rating. They also give the bullet points for substance abuse, list discussion topics the movie might raise, and then give a brief summation of a message the movie might have. I think it's great. I wouldn't want it to be mandated by the government, I don't want it to be the only rating around, but for me, it works so I know what's there before I go, either to avoid going or to at least prepare myself for it.

      Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a happy user of their services.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    119. Re:Pisses me by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      Vital point missed by half the thread: +informative.
      When you drive on your own property, you don't pose a risk to everyone else.

      Public roads may have many people using them, and so a licence is to use public roads using certain vehicles, not a licence to 'drive a car'.

    120. Re:Pisses me by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      You have a serious case of confirmation bias.

      I, like many [weasel words] Australians were interested in many of the well known games that were refused classification.

      Here's a few RC games for a start, many of which were commonly played here in Australia despite being banned. It just meant people were unable to BUY them here, which is absurd.

      Note that many of those games are R18+ simply for violence, or drug references. If this is okay in film, then why should it be banned from games?

      Your opinion does not mirror the everyone in the country, and it's no reason to stop the sale of games such as these. You're free to not buy them and you'd be unaffected.

    121. Re:Pisses me by Repton · · Score: 1

      You ever wonder about Fallout 3?

      Fallout 1&2 had drugs like buffout, mentats, psycho, etc. Bethesda announce that they're having problems getting F3 rated in Aus, because of the drug use. They announce a compromise has been reached, where they will change the drug names to made-up names like buffout, mentats, psycho, etc. Oh, and they're making the change world-wide.

      Result: extra publicity for the game, and Bethesda get a rather violent game (it's R18 here in NZ) a low rating.

      And can you imagine the fallout (no pun intended) amongst fans if they released the game and didn't use the canon drug names?

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    122. Re:Pisses me by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think the people of Australia really want that.

      Don't confuse the idiotic ideals of a single senator (that only won their seat because of an epic preferences fail by the other parties) as being the ideals of the whole country.

    123. Re:Pisses me by GloomE · · Score: 1

      I don't think we elect them based on their ratings system policies.
      I don't recall it being a big issue during elections.
      I'm not even sure any of the mainstream parties would differ significantly on their policy on this issue.

    124. Re:Pisses me by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Of course those person's taxes count... And, sure they should get treatment. But, they should also realize that lung cancer is an expensive thing to treat, and this treatment will result in higher taxes for the rest of society.

    125. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdote from when I was about eight.

      Was out at the lake with my father. It was after dark and this fellow had a problem launching his boat at the ramp. He'd broken the rope on his winch earlier and lost the hook on the end so he'd just tied the rope onto the eye at the bow of his boat. Now he was having trouble undoing the knot he'd made since it probably got pulled tight when he'd winched the boat onto the trailer.

      He asked if anyone had a pocketknife. I did so I let him borrow it and cautioned him "Be careful. It's really sharp." Of course a grown man hearing this from an eight year old is probably thinking "Yeah right. Like I'm gonna cut myself or something." In fact the knife was really extremely sharp having just been sharpened earlier that day.

      Two minutes later the guy brings my knife back and he looks a little pale. Hands the knife to me and says "I cut my thumb clean to the bone."

      Only reason I remember this is because that same night some older kid in sneakers stepped on a beer bottle and cut his heel really badly.

    126. Re:Pisses me by nemesisrocks · · Score: 1

      In Australia, I'm pretty sure that content that's refused classification is not only illegal to sell, it's illegal to import. You therefore have no legal way of owning the content -- hence, illegal to own.

      The best example I can think of this was a film called "Lolita". A couple of well-known movie critics here (David and Margaret) organised a private screening of the film. They got into a fair bit of strife over this.

    127. Re:Pisses me by snowtigger · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is a ridiculous comparison. Maybe they should outlaw cars too? They kill and hurt a lot more people than games do.

      What Australia really needs to outlaw is vending machines. They kill more people than sharks.

      http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2005/06/29/are-vending-machines-deadlier-than-sharks-repost.htm

    128. Re:Pisses me by nick79au · · Score: 0

      Except that to change the classification system you need the agreement of all state Attorneys-General. Currently only the guy from South Australia is holding out (AFAIK). Being in Qld I know I didn't vote for him

    129. Re:Pisses me by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Australia has such a problem, in that there is no "R" equivalent for games. This doesn't mean all the other ratings given out to games are meaningless or pointless.

      However, thanks to the lack of an R18+ rating, games sometimes do get released as MA15+ that probably should be R rated.

    130. Re:Pisses me by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of rating various elements that would normally go into a rating, but separately. For example, separate ratings for sex, nudity, violence, and drug use. Provide facts for each category: do not rate it for an age group, but state what it has. For example, the nudity category might have "brief glimpses of a boob or two," "no nudity," or "this is porn." Violence could be "what your big brother did to you growing up," "gratuitous mowing down of Charleys with a machine gun," or "this is a movie about the pope."

      That is pretty close to what it is like in Australia. For example, my copy of New Super Mario Bros says it is rated PG, and contains gambling references. A movie might say it contains frequent coarse language, nudity and sex scenes.

    131. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, just because you do it doesn't make it right.

      Just one question. Who are you to dictate to us what is right? It is a question of choice that the majority of Australians agree with. Deal with it.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    132. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      GloomE I presume you are Australian. I was basically telling the Americans and others here that we'll do what we want on our continent.

      Personally I don't think that most Australians regard it as a major issue the way things are and we are quite aware of the state of things.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    133. Re:Pisses me by Toonol · · Score: 1

      You're defending the choice of Australians to remove choice from other Australians?

    134. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why
      the classification system
      also lists the
      themes.

      It is for you
      to make an informed
      choice.

    135. Re:Pisses me by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. That's the advantage of using private industry for this sort of thing, too. Because we're not having government control, there's nothing to prevent a second classification agency with a totally different set of rules and ratings.

    136. Re:Pisses me by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm thinking of the Irish or British classification system then. Or, maybe I totally misread it, and Ireland, Australia, and the United Kingdom are ALL having content censored by their respective governments.

      At least the former British colonies over in the New World are fairing a bit better as far as censorship goes... well censorship as far as movies and music and video games.

    137. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't have to have a license to drive.

      if caught you will get into some mildy serious shit, but there is nothing stopping you from driving without a license, insurance, or registration.

      just as a mexican

    138. Re:Pisses me by The+Fat+Bastid · · Score: 1

      it was just the med-x drug. It was originally morphine.

    139. Re:Pisses me by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      You're defending the choice of Australians to remove choice from other Australians?

      I'm defending Australians collective right to make laws and regulations to govern our own nation.

      All laws remove choice to some degree. Laws against murder for instance seek to restrict violent killing. The regulations regarding classification of games, films and other media may restrict choice at the extreme end of the scale, but also enhance the ability of people to choose what they want to watch or their children to see.

      These regulations are an expression of our democracy and are in line with regulations spanning decades.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    140. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why you typically see notices like "gameplay experience may vary for online play" after the rating, because games do change.

      My question though is would the law necessarily apply?

      Read your EULA they aren't selling you an MMO, they are selling you a subscription service. Your 'game' is really little more than a client, much like your web browser is your acess to the net, your MMO client is your acess to their servers.

    141. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rating systems are good, ENFORCED rating systems are bad.

      Illegal content is Illegal, and will take care of it itself under the laws that made it illegal.

      Anything else should be there simply to be informative. Especially given the nature of the product. Little timmy's allowance does not let him buy the latest major title at 50-70 bucks a pop, mommy and daddy buy it, its already being sold to an adult, now we just have to expect that parents buying something for their kids might actually give a shit and understand what the new toy they handed over actually is.

      If it wasn't illegal to produce it, why shouldn't it be saleable? Granted there are things we don't want in the hands of our children, but when its the parents buying it anyway its up to the parents to make sure they aren't handing something horrible over to their kids.

      Parents to fail to grasp that there might be a significant difference between Barbie Adventures and Conkers Bad Fur Day are the real problem here.

    142. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'll grant you that this sort of decision making reeks of incompetence. Of course, I mean by creating the system in the first place. You probably do not.

      Apathy doesn't fit. Apparently they saw need to port the other ratings. If they were apathetic, they couldn't be bothered to do that. Because they wouldn't care.

      Incompetence the way you define it doesn't fit either. If they really thought games were "only for kids" then ratings would be superfluous. Ratings exist to separate stuff for kids from stuff for adults. Different ratings systems can leave authority to decide who is and is not an adult to different people. But the rating system itself is indicative that the medium being rated may not be so appropriate for the children.

      And the bribery you refer to really is the nudge-nudge, wink-wink sort of bribery. The bribery you allude to in American politics is more of a "you got the stuff?" "you got the money?" transaction. Both allow small groups to subvert the greater good, so I'm not sure where you'd claim that one is better than the other.

    143. Re:Pisses me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want" That is why ratings are there, to protect non adults from inappropriate content.

      And when was the last time somebody lacking a day job could afford 70 bucks for the latest new game?

      Kids aren't buying games, their parents are!

    144. Re:Pisses me by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want. Requiring a rating on games, movies, music, etc, is just censorship by another name.

      No, it's not, and conflating the two is extremely counter-productive.

      Not all media purchasers are adults. Not all adult media purchasers are purchasing the media for their own use. A ratings system is they so they are able to make *educated decisions* about what it is they are purchasing. A ratings systems - in and of itself - does not prevent an adult from buying anything they want.

      What a great idea. We should try it out in Australia. Yes, I know you go on to say as much, but this part of your post is pretty much spot-on about the problem as it is in Australia.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    145. Re:Pisses me by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      nah, some should be 30+

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    146. Re:Pisses me by chefren · · Score: 1

      It's called democracy. If no choice is removed from anyone then you have no use for laws (that is what laws do). That is called anarchy.

    147. Re:Pisses me by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The problem in this particular example is not an active attempt to ban "adult" content, it's the pandering to a handful of conservative twats who can't get their heads around the idea that people other than 12 year old boys play computer games.

      The conservatives know that perfectly well; however, being conservatives, they get enjoyment from lording it over other people.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    148. Re:Pisses me by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Incompetence I'll grant as a possibility, but, George W Bush notwithstanding, mouth-breathers with room-temperature IQs tend to have trouble getting into high office.

      "Room-temperature IQ" is a non-fixed measurement. Einstein would have a room-temperature IQ in Australia - us normal mortals could only measure up to refrigerators ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    149. Re:Pisses me by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That is why ratings are there, to protect non adults from inappropriate content.

      No, they're there to protect adults from the thought that the kids will see material those adults consider inappropriate.

      Most children suffer far worse traumas IRL than seeing boobies or blood on a monitor, and yet grow up okay. Children aren't fragile and don't need anywhere near the level of protection we're giving them today, especially not against entirely imaginary threats; however, a parent's need to indulge in her parental instinct would put any glutton to shame, and various salesmen are more than happy to sell them "security". Parent's eat that shit up because it appeals to their instincts and because it alleviates their guilty conscience over not being able to protect their children from real threats, such as bullying or - far too often - themselves.

      In a world where many parents are religious or ideological nutcases, I'm happy to know that the system leaks so that their offspring can view "inappropriate" content and thus break out of the conditioning. Help undermine rating systems and information control; it's for the children.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    150. Re:Pisses me by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      ressing up of the childish "don't tell me what to do".

      I believe Thomas Jefferson preferred: "You're not the boss of me!"

    151. Re:Pisses me by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      hmmm, i still got marked as troll for it. someone must have sockpuppets with mod points at the moment.

    152. Re:Pisses me by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      I think the battle of Omdurman might have had a different result if the British army had tried to see off the Dervish with volleys of poetry.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  2. no surprise by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as there are politicians in need of a platform to rant on in order to get elected, nonsense like this will happen.

    Since the overwhelming majority of people neither play, or possibly even understand, computer games, its a soft touch for some 'fear inducement' followed by 'and I can save the children from it'.

    Thus far it hasn't stopped the games industry raking in billions over the years, nor will it in the future.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:no surprise by NightRain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since the overwhelming majority of people neither play, or possibly even understand, computer games, its a soft touch for some 'fear inducement' followed by 'and I can save the children from it'.

      Yes, it's not like 97% of American teens play computer games or over 50% of American adults

    2. Re:no surprise by thermian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it's not like 97% of American teens play computer games or over 50% of American adults

      Strangely enough, most of the world aren't Americans, and this story isn't about America either.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    3. Re:no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not like FOX news isn't very biased.

    4. Re:no surprise by ghmh · · Score: 1

      Since the overwhelming majority of politicians neither play, or possibly even understand, computer games*, they'll agree to whatever the minority holders of the balance of power in parliament ask for in exchange for support for other policies they're pushing.

      * Insert any minority concern here

      There, fixed that for you.

    5. Re:no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? Everything is about America!

    6. Re:no surprise by NightRain · · Score: 1

      And surprisingly enough, I'm not American either. However, if I had have posted that without specifying that it was based on Americans, I'd have got singled out for that as well

    7. Re:no surprise by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At some point real soon, there is going to be a backlash against the 'protect the children from video games' crap.

      We're hitting the ~25 year mark for video games in people's houses, both in computers and consoles like the Atari and NES, which means that almost everyone under 35 grew up with them to some extent. Even if they didn't have any, they knew people who did, and played them.

      If we assume that 'children who need protecting' are children 10-18, and that people have kids when they're 20-30, the young end of those parents are already people who grew up with video games and understands the demonization for what it is.

      And that group will just continue to grow over the next decade as the older people fall off the end of being parents. We're already at the point in time where very few people who did not grown up with games will become new parents. (That is, people who didn't grow up with video games are past the general child-bearing age now. At least the women, the men have another five years or so.)

      At some point, parents are going to stop responding to the dangers of video games. They'll know damn well that different games are different and aimed at different people and ages, and that any moderately competent parent can tell them apart.

      Politicians don't get this, as the most powerful ones are almost uniformly older than 35.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:no surprise by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      But it's hardly a stretch to suppose that such figures are going to be somewhat accurate for others.

      Australian and American game playing isn't really that different, and using American statistics is a lesser stretch than claiming against the " overwhelming majority of people".

      Neither will be 100% true, but I think the statistics from America are far more likely to reflect the Australian truth.

  3. Confusing Developments by Carfiend · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was led to believe that the Aussies were criminal types that we kicked out and the first American Colonists were people who were too uptight even for us English types.

    So why then do we have the Aussies being uptight about foolish things and the Americans being pretty chilled out about most things?

    My belief in stereotypes has been shattered!

    --
    Uh, perhaps you can help me? I'm looking for a love-potion aerosol, that I can spray on a certain Penthouse Pet, to obta
    1. Re:Confusing Developments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to live in the america you live in.

    2. Re:Confusing Developments by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is America. Kids can't look at boobs, but you can legally own and operate flamethrowers, build and use garage guns, and fire an M134 minigun.

      We make a lot of sense here, don't we?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Confusing Developments by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The "North America founded by a bunch of religious zealots" argument is a common misconception that always irks me. In fact, that's only true of the New England colonies. In Jamestown and the southern colonies, and and in New Amsterdam/New York and the middle colonies, settlers were interested mostly in economic gain and opportunity, not in bible-thumping (with a few notable exceptions, like the Huguenots in South Carolina). The puritans were just one group of settlers in one region, they are not the sole "founders" of what would become the U.S.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Confusing Developments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well while we're at it, the idea that Australia is full of convicts is another misconception. Most convicts got on the boat back home after they'd served their time. It was the free settlers who stayed around and built this nation. Nowadays only around 2% of Australians are descended from convicts.

  4. Penalty - Send all the convicts to Australia by Patito · · Score: 5, Funny

    AU$27,220.80 or two years? I for one vote for doing things like in the old days: Just send all the convicts to Australia...

    1. Re:Penalty - Send all the convicts to Australia by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      If they outlaw sending convicts to Australia, only convicts will live in Australia.

  5. and nothing was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Australians verge into two categories, the normal Australians with sense (a rarity) and the racist blundering idiots, I simply couldn't care.

    Lock them out and watch them cry when they can't get anything a normal western county has. It's not economically worth it to be there.

    1. Re:and nothing was lost by plasmacutter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since Australians verge into two categories, the normal Australians with sense (a rarity) and the racist blundering idiots

      you do realize america has that second category too. Who do you think votes republican every election?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  6. Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get how this happens.

    Most MMO publishers (at least the ones who sell games on store shelves) also publish other games. If they know their other games need a rating, how did they not do this for MMO's?

    Game retailers in AUS know to only stock rated games. How did they not know MMO's needed to be rated?

    The ratings board knows to rates games. Did they just not notice a large group of games?

    TFA is somewhat silent on this, other than "it happened." Baffling.

  7. Blame the Republicans... by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you do realize america has that second category too. Who do you think votes republican every election?

    The white racists who vote democrat are simply more circumspect about their racism. Instead of burning crosses, they've spent the last 40 years getting most blacks to believe that they could not EVER succeed without the government slamming the door open for them, not to mention undermining the black family at every step of the way through welfare policies that have made the presence of fathers economically unnecessary.

    I'd also like to point out that David Duke was a Democrat until 1988 and Robert Byrd, the most senior Democrat in Congress, was a grand-something-or-other in the KKK. You don't get to where Byrd was in the KKK if there is even a hint that you're sitting the fence on what you think black people are. Yet, somehow, even though he has used a certain n word "by accident" on national television, he is simply regarded by most Democrats in power as "senior constitutional scholar."

    1. Re:Blame the Republicans... by Kayden · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's the government's fault black people don't have jobs and are on welfare? "The white man" is keeping "the black man" down by giving him free money? I take it that means no one would cry racism when someone would want to remove welfare programs then.

    2. Re:Blame the Republicans... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      it was a joke.. /whoosh!

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  8. hard to believe by v1 · · Score: 1

    publishers and distributors at some point misunderstood their obligations ... or did their lawyers simply say "hey I think we can get away with this, some others already in this arena are doing it!" I find it hard to believe a whole squadron of expensive suits "overlooked" this.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  9. What about free!! by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Does giving a freeware or opensource game fall under that law?

  10. Start selling "games" by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

    Start selling games as academic, sociological research tools. I don't think you need a rating on those.

  11. Sold or rented? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

    Does the law cover rented or leased games? You don't actually "buy" a MMO, you pay a monthly fee to play.

    1. Re:Sold or rented? by flitty · · Score: 1

      On top of that, Don't most EULA's state that you paid for a license to play the game, not the game itself? It's not illegal to sell licenses to unrated games, is it? Guess there is one upside to the whole "you don't own your software" for aussies.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  12. Censorship = Banning Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will people know about it if it can't be released?

    The Internet, unless Australia goes Chinese on us.

    If it's really minor it'd be trivial to fix. Seems to me like there's deliberate intent to keep that bug (or is it a feature) in place. That would indeed be censorship.

    Even if it's not deliberate, it is censorship. Not "censorship by another name", but actual bona fide 100% pure unmitigated unadulterated pasteurized homogenized censorship.

    The GP (drsmithy) is absolutely correct that a ratings system is not itself an instance of censorship. But once you stand up and say "all games whose content is in (nonempty) category X are illegal to sell" then you've instituted censorship. That might not be a bad thing (depending on what category X is) but it should be as clear as vodka that the act of banning is censorship but the ratings system is not.

    1. Re:Censorship = Banning Content by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      "The Internet, unless Australia goes Chinese on us."

        Ahem. Not that Korea is any better. I've gotten "Internet Police" notices when trying to visit adult sites.

  13. Games sold via iTunes? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Is there even a rating system available when someone sells a game via the iTunes Store? Are all iPhone/iPod touch game developpers world-wide targeted for lawsuits from the Australian government?!

  14. Hmm.. by kabocox · · Score: 1

    I think that Australia should just fine each involved company to the max. They shouldn't give any of them a "free pass." As long as they make the entire industry that tired to dance around the law by ignoring it the same or similar punishment, then it'd be mostly favor.

    If the Australian government wants to make video games unprofitable for them, then more power to them. The effect could be an entire industry boycotting a country though. Or worse, use Australia as the "bad guys" in the next series of games instead of Nazis, USSR, evil Arabians, or space aliens.

    We've got silly, but effective lobbies here in the US. I can't really complain about the ones that they are stuck with. If they, upset the Australian citizens enough, the Australian Citizens will make new lobbies to get easier or broader ratings.

    Heck, I'm constantly stunned when I watch G & PG stuff now. It seems like stuff that's getting G would have gotten a PG, and the PG stuff would have been PG-13 back when I was a kid. PG-13 seems close to what the NC-17 used to be. NC-17 used to be the anime rating. Now they show that on cartoon network.

    It's not that I care for me when I watch a stupid Disney G movie. I just liked knowing that standard was fairly kid safe. Heck, it seems like I can't even trust Veggie Tales to be kid safe. Well, atleast I can let them play my old school games. Nope, there's Smash TV and Metal Slug in there! O.k. we are sticking with FF. Nope, there is some language in there. O.k. less than 5 words through 5 series, but still.

  15. And this is why.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blizzard didn't put any Oceanic servers actually in the region! That's why all of the lag!

  16. Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, question. They say that Australian stores will not be able to stock said games...but can the public still purchase them online?

  17. Australia by koan · · Score: 0, Troll

    Highest incidence of alcohol related brain shrinkage in the world.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  18. In Soviet Australia... by finelinebob · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the MMO's penalize YOU!

    1. Re:In Soviet Australia... by AutumnLeaf · · Score: 1

      ... the government farms the MMO.

  19. Australia vs. Internet by noundi · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why Australia hates the internet so much.

    To Australia:
    Stop hating internet and stop sticking your heads inside wild animals mouths. Remember chicks dig internet and solid craniums.

    --
    I am the lawn!
    1. Re:Australia vs. Internet by The_Myth · · Score: 1

      Its not Australia that hates the internet. Its fear mongering produced by the Australian Media and over zealous politicians who hold the balance of power in our governments that hate the internet.

      Well the media doesnt hate it per se - they love the publicity that stories about children being stalked online generates to the Big Brother lowest common denominators of our society.

      The politicians dont understand the internet. I would be surprised if any of them could spell it. They see the media reports and go into we must protect our children from the big bad internet as we all know from the media that all children are hunted, targeted and in danger.

      I am an australian and proud of it. I would also like to point out that there are industry groups like the iia (http://www.iia.net.au) who both stand up to government and attempt to influence policy on practical matters.

      --
      The MyTh - I am a figment of the Imagination - [Im Probably even not here]
    2. Re:Australia vs. Internet by smash · · Score: 1
      Most australians do not share the "internet is evil" and "games are bad" views.

      Unfortunately, we only have 2 political parties with any chance of getting elected, and they're both headed by god-fearing christian types who seem bent on trying to protect the citizenry from themselves.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  20. Fox News by viruswatts · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's not like 97% of American teens play computer games or over 50% of American adults

    I'm all for the argument being pro gamers, but your talking about Fox News here...

    1. Re:Fox News by NightRain · · Score: 1

      Say what? The guy said "the overwhelming majority" of people don't play computer games. I was disputing that with some quickly googled figures. Sure, they're for America, not Australia. Sure, they're with fox news (which I don't even get here, so I have no idea what they're like). None of that alters the fact that the figures dispute his off the cuff "overwhelming majority" comment. Even if it's not an identical situation in Australia, those figures suggest that the situation is a lot less clear than he was trying to make it appear

  21. I'm curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this law effect independent game developers?

  22. Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia has been selling unclassified MMO's for years. No one cared... until now.

    The article by Massively has just painted a big bulls eye around these MMO's. By generating the controversy, it has caused the problem

  23. Aus Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The organisation which classifies games for sale in australia does not have a rating system for games without a single player component. Basically they dont believe Multi Player only games require a rating.

    This is compounded by the fact that the game sales law which require all games to have a rating are very old (1980's) and are very vague.

    so in order to resolve the problem... MMO's not only have to be rated, but the laws need to be changed so that they can actually be classified as a game under law (from my understanding aus law only recognises games with a single player component as "games")

    1. Re:Aus Laws by Spikeles · · Score: 1

      The organisation which classifies games for sale in australia does not have a rating system for games without a single player component.........game sales law which require all games to have a rating are very old (1980's)

      Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995:

      5A Meaning of computer game
      (1) A computer game is a computer program and any associated data capable of generating a display on a computer monitor, television screen, liquid crystal display or similar medium that allows the playing of an interactive game.
      (2) A computer program, data associated with a computer program or
      a computer program and any associated data that:
      (a) is capable of generating new elements or additional levels into a game (the original game) that is a computer game under subsection (1); and
      (b) is contained in a device separate from that containing the original game;
      is also a computer game.
      (3) However, a computer game does not include an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game.

      I don't see anything in there specifically mentioning how many players define a "game".

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
  24. That's not how it works by glittalogik · · Score: 1

    ...this has been brought to the attention of the Australian media, so hopefully the issue will be resolved soon.

    You are obviously not very familiar with the Australian Media.

    "This game is ILLEGAL in Australia. Is YOUR child playing it? Details at 6"
    "Police aware of rampant smuggling operation, do nothing"
    "Software smugglers face decades in prison if caught"
    "Prime Minister announces new anti-terrorism/unclassified games task force"

  25. Moral Judgement by Suisho · · Score: 1

    This is outrageous.

    People should have the right to play whatever game they want.

    The whole 'if we don't define it it is illegal' is the same as like, I've got categories of books, and if I don't define it, its illegal. Its a book. It is expression. No, this isn't the US. But, Australia is supposedly a 'free' country.

    Rating systems are dangerous. We end up with things like pointed out above, boobs illegal, flamethrowers aren't? Why? Because somebody with "moral standards" stood up to "protect."

    Rating is basically just a glorified morality judgment. It isn't about development level, its not about what children can understand or not, or the effects of specific introductions of concepts or play types on the brain. Its simply about what "Mr. God-wants-the-children-pure" thinks should be whatever rating.

  26. Are You Fucking Dumb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you claim to live in the land of convicts in other posts, then you post that stupid bullshit. If the ratings weren't there to restrict games, then why do they on your bullshit Island?

  27. Only a problem for boxed games by riprjak · · Score: 1

    Classification does not equate to censorship per se. Classification of games is required to SELL PRODUCTS IN AUSTRALIA, so this only applies to boxed objects or MMO's run from Australia.

    If you downloaded the client from the offshore game website and signed up online with the offshore organisation; no harm, no foul. There may be some fuzziness with steam and other digital storefronts that may have a presence in Australia and technically SELL in Australia, but if I buy a boxed game overseas that is not classified here, I can still bring it in, provided it doesnt contravene OTHER laws; just cant sell it second hand.

    Storm in a teacup; seriously who buys boxed MMOs anyway?? Normally they are so out of date they have to re-download the entire game as an update anyway... easier just to grab it online and sign up too...

    Game time cards; that could be an interesting legal arguement, but probably a hiding to nowhere since the arent covered by the act.

    In summary, little or nothing to see here; move along.
    err!
    jak.

    1. Re:Only a problem for boxed games by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      Any classification system where one of possible results is 'illegal to sell at all' is a censorship system - a system that decides how and which titles get allowed, and which get censored.

      The fact that you can get around the system just means that the system is imperfect, but it does not change the fact that it (as currently implemented) is a censorship system.

  28. You CAN buy those games by dleigh · · Score: 1

    You can buy all those games you mentioned in stores in Australia. If you read the website, they include items that were resubmitted to the rating board (some with changes, some without).