To get a full understanding of why this is something to be concerned about, you need to remember that the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007, content rules targeted at the internet, comes into force in 20 days. Among other things, this:
prohibits X18+ and RC content.
prohibits R18+ content, unless it is subject to appropriate access restrictions.
prohibits commercial MA15+ content, unless it is subject to appropriate access restrictions.
requires providers of hosting services, live content services, link services and commercial content services to have in place access restrictions if providing R18+ and commercial MA15+ content.
requires that records of who has been authorised to view what by which means be kept for two years
allows for 'take down', 'service cessation' and 'link deletion' notices to remove content or access to content that is the subject of a complaint
This, in and of itself, is pretty much unenforceable, as it just means our major content providers will move offshore or, at most, stop providing content that's aimed at teens altogether. But if a) X18+ and RC content is illegal for all Australians to view b) the government requires filtering at an ISP level and c) the ISPs will likely not be allowed to tell us what they filter out, one must ask: how 'dirty' is the unfiltered feed going to be? Really? Because our content laws are very restrictive - the X18+ and RC ratings cover a very, very broad swathe of material indeed, a lot of which is perfectly legal in places like the US, UK and western Europe. They only reason we don't feel the sting of our censorship laws more often is because our law enforcement agencies see enforcing the ones that don't deal with child pornography to be an utter waste of time and money.
Dear gods I hope this leads to a simple and effective region unlock. I'm sick of being told that I can't play games until well after they've been released elsewhere, and that, as an aussie, I have to pay twice as much as US consumers for the privilege.
It would very likely cover content outside of Australia. This ties directly into Labour policy that will make ISPs provide a 'clean feed' that is opt-out rather than opt-in. ISPs will be required to blacklist and filter out sites containing material that is X18+ or Refused Classification, no matter where it is hosted. Our classification system is rather onerous, which means that a lot of stuff will be blocked that's seen as perfectly acceptable in, say, the US or UK.
Seriously speaking, I'm betting Drew just wanted to see how many news outfits he could get to carry such a ridiculous story, and how much of an overreaction and outrage said coverage would generate in the blogosphere. An effective publicity stunt, really, considering the recent publication of his book and its subject matter.
The third season has just started post-production and is tentatively set to debut in June. Jason Publick, co-creator and writer, has a blog where he occasionally posts production updates and art. No date for season four as of yet, but he says the wait between seasons shouldn't be as bad this time around.
I wonder if part of the reason for the lower than expected demand was that they've not allowed international buyers, while the laptop has garnered international attention. The boss and I were going to put forward a proposal for the city we work for to buy ten or so through the give-one-get-one program, with the ten we got going to the library system. The donation thing makes the city look good, and the laptops themselves are perfect for library use: durable, nearly idiot-proof and cheap enough that it's not a major concern if someone breaks it or 'steals' it. Heck, in the latter case, we could remotely brick it to encourage its return.
And then we saw the "only for US and Canadian residents" notice and our hearts sunk.
I can see your point. The thing is, though, why should I care about their bottom line, or if someone else can or can't buy a game they produce? Mine is a privileged perspective, I know, and a self-centred one, but it irks me no end that companies are allowed to make use of the benefits of globalisation by shopping around for the cheapest supplier(s) while forbidding me from doing the same just because they're a step up the production chain.
I'm in Australia, and our dollar is doing rather well against yours. It's gotten to the point now where I can buy games from the 'Sates and pay less for them, including shipping by airmail, than I could buying them from a retail outlet over here. Some of the savings are quite substantial - The Orange Box, for example, retails for $99AU here, yet I can buy it from Amazon for $52 AU. Is it wrong for me to buy these things from the US? I mean, I'm an Australian gamer who can afford to pay Australian prices, right? What about DVDs? They're cheaper from Amazon than they are here, and, what's more, many of the items for sale by Amazon have not been released here, nor do I think they will ever be. Should I not purchase seasons 3 and 4 of Teen Titans?
Actually, I think you'll find that Zonk's usage is correct, and yours "wreaks of misinformation". 'Gone Gold', in terms of software, means the product has reached its final or release build, and is about to enter into manufacture. It has nothing to do with sales. A quick google of the term will tell you so.
I have to agree. When you look at it, the Senator is one of those rare non-gamers who has grasped the idea that not all video games are intended for children. More, he seems to have realised, if in a round about way, that most people don't understand this. They aren't educated on the subject, and don't care to be, and would far rather legislators wield the ban stick in the interests of making the medium into the kiddie corner. Rather than ban entirely, he seems to think the best option is to restrict by age, something the industry is supposed to be doing of its own accord anyway.
While I think we'd all prefer it if every soccer mom on the planet suddenly clued in, properly enacted legislation that could do more for changing the perception that games are only for kids than pretty much anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
They're already quite happy to search your mobile devices for pr0n, so I don't imagine searching them for unclassified apps would be too big a step.
To get a full understanding of why this is something to be concerned about, you need to remember that the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007, content rules targeted at the internet, comes into force in 20 days. Among other things, this:
This, in and of itself, is pretty much unenforceable, as it just means our major content providers will move offshore or, at most, stop providing content that's aimed at teens altogether. But if a) X18+ and RC content is illegal for all Australians to view b) the government requires filtering at an ISP level and c) the ISPs will likely not be allowed to tell us what they filter out, one must ask: how 'dirty' is the unfiltered feed going to be? Really? Because our content laws are very restrictive - the X18+ and RC ratings cover a very, very broad swathe of material indeed, a lot of which is perfectly legal in places like the US, UK and western Europe. They only reason we don't feel the sting of our censorship laws more often is because our law enforcement agencies see enforcing the ones that don't deal with child pornography to be an utter waste of time and money.
Dear gods I hope this leads to a simple and effective region unlock. I'm sick of being told that I can't play games until well after they've been released elsewhere, and that, as an aussie, I have to pay twice as much as US consumers for the privilege.
It would very likely cover content outside of Australia. This ties directly into Labour policy that will make ISPs provide a 'clean feed' that is opt-out rather than opt-in. ISPs will be required to blacklist and filter out sites containing material that is X18+ or Refused Classification, no matter where it is hosted. Our classification system is rather onerous, which means that a lot of stuff will be blocked that's seen as perfectly acceptable in, say, the US or UK.
It's not news, it's Fark.
Seriously speaking, I'm betting Drew just wanted to see how many news outfits he could get to carry such a ridiculous story, and how much of an overreaction and outrage said coverage would generate in the blogosphere. An effective publicity stunt, really, considering the recent publication of his book and its subject matter.
The third season has just started post-production and is tentatively set to debut in June. Jason Publick, co-creator and writer, has a blog where he occasionally posts production updates and art. No date for season four as of yet, but he says the wait between seasons shouldn't be as bad this time around.
I wonder if part of the reason for the lower than expected demand was that they've not allowed international buyers, while the laptop has garnered international attention. The boss and I were going to put forward a proposal for the city we work for to buy ten or so through the give-one-get-one program, with the ten we got going to the library system. The donation thing makes the city look good, and the laptops themselves are perfect for library use: durable, nearly idiot-proof and cheap enough that it's not a major concern if someone breaks it or 'steals' it. Heck, in the latter case, we could remotely brick it to encourage its return.
And then we saw the "only for US and Canadian residents" notice and our hearts sunk.
I can see your point. The thing is, though, why should I care about their bottom line, or if someone else can or can't buy a game they produce? Mine is a privileged perspective, I know, and a self-centred one, but it irks me no end that companies are allowed to make use of the benefits of globalisation by shopping around for the cheapest supplier(s) while forbidding me from doing the same just because they're a step up the production chain.
I'm in Australia, and our dollar is doing rather well against yours. It's gotten to the point now where I can buy games from the 'Sates and pay less for them, including shipping by airmail, than I could buying them from a retail outlet over here. Some of the savings are quite substantial - The Orange Box, for example, retails for $99AU here, yet I can buy it from Amazon for $52 AU. Is it wrong for me to buy these things from the US? I mean, I'm an Australian gamer who can afford to pay Australian prices, right? What about DVDs? They're cheaper from Amazon than they are here, and, what's more, many of the items for sale by Amazon have not been released here, nor do I think they will ever be. Should I not purchase seasons 3 and 4 of Teen Titans?
Actually, I think you'll find that Zonk's usage is correct, and yours "wreaks of misinformation". 'Gone Gold', in terms of software, means the product has reached its final or release build, and is about to enter into manufacture. It has nothing to do with sales. A quick google of the term will tell you so.
I have to agree. When you look at it, the Senator is one of those rare non-gamers who has grasped the idea that not all video games are intended for children. More, he seems to have realised, if in a round about way, that most people don't understand this. They aren't educated on the subject, and don't care to be, and would far rather legislators wield the ban stick in the interests of making the medium into the kiddie corner. Rather than ban entirely, he seems to think the best option is to restrict by age, something the industry is supposed to be doing of its own accord anyway. While I think we'd all prefer it if every soccer mom on the planet suddenly clued in, properly enacted legislation that could do more for changing the perception that games are only for kids than pretty much anything else.