| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (51)

Posted: Jun 27th 2009 12:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I work in local government and even there it is hard to keep up with departmental name changes! I have had a look for the division of resposibility between the two and we're both right and I am a little wrong. Rather than paraphrase I'll cut-and-paste some of Q&A on the ABC on 26 March:

SUSAN CARLAND: Well, to an extent. I'd still like to know exactly - so you said - is ACMA that body that will be deciding what is appropriate and what is not? What is permissible to be seen and what is not?

STEPHEN CONROY: At the moment there's a combined function between the classification board and an ACMA official. Now, given that we might be moving under the policy to a new situation, I've actually been saying in the last few days I think we need to make sure that people have confidence about the process. At the moment there is the classification board and people will sometimes say, "I agree with the decisions they've made," or "I disagree with the decisions they've made." But by and large there's a public confidence that the board makes reasonable decisions. Not always ones that everyone agrees with. So I'm keen to make sure people have confidence that as we move to a new scenario that the classification board continues to have the paramount role, and I'm happy to make sure and discuss ideas about making sure that an ACMA official, who I don't know the name of, just in case anyone's worried I'm phoning them and saying, "Hey, put Andrew Bolt on the blacklist."

Because of the wider issues to do with differing interpretations, departmental demarcation and R18+ classification for games now is a good time for a wide ranging debate and policy formulation about the classification of cultural product, but this should be kept separate from the issue of internet filtering.

Once there is wide-ranging and genuine concensus regarding the process and implimentation of ratings classifications, without the cherry picking mentality regarding different media (and in the case of X rated material, different jurisdictions) the issue of internet filtering becomes one of technical feasability alone.

We should steer clear of unhelpful hyperbole regarding political freedom of speech, social debate and sexual expression. The Australian community is more permissive than most people, especially politicians, give them credit for and there is much that is freely available to the adult population if they wish to seek it out. The issue that games designers, publishers and gamers have to address is that if they want access to wider content is the genuine and real resposibility to the wider community regarding violent imagery.

But violence is a bigger issue than just the games industry as all cultural product seems to be in some sort of arms race with explicit violence, I mean, have you read a procedural thiller novel lately?

Posted: Aug 13th 2009 11:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As if this any surprise. Look at all of the disgusting things on SL that are against the TOS and that LL turns a blind eye to.
Germany and a few other Countries are planning this too. You can thank the perverts of SL for this

Posted: Jun 27th 2009 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While we are expecting Second Life to be included if the proposed measures go ahead in their current form, currently the people behind this proposal are focusing on *games* -- which places Age of Conan and Fallen Earth square in the firing line, among others.
Reply

Posted: Jun 30th 2009 12:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
'Never'?
You'll forgive me if I don't simply drop my protest because 'tripndie says it'll never happen'...
And yes, I sure as heck *am* embarrassed to be Australian right now. It's an abomination of a notion, and it puts us right up there with China. Australia is supposed to be a democracy last time I checked. Also, decisions regarding the raising of my children were supposed to remain in the hands of parents if I recall correctly.

Don't you dare try to diminish the severity of this ridiculous proposal, trpndie. It's not 'over' til its over..

Posted: Jun 30th 2009 5:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This article is incorrect... you call this journalism? I'm not defending Conroy but christ sake get your facts right.

"Right now, games that will be sold in Australia (that is, where the actual sale takes place in Australia) need to be classified by the Australian Classifications Board (a division of the Federal Attorney General's office)."

Correct

" Games sold by various download services (such as Steam, Direct2Drive, Impulse and so on) do not require classification for sale, as the sale isn't taking place within Australian jurisdiction (only the purchase. There's a difference)."
Extremely incorrect.

Dow Jones v Gutnick states that where a person downloads something is where it's published. Under the definitions of the Classification Act the sale of includes publishing. Common Law stipulates that under contract law across jurisdictions it is also where the person purchasing is that the jurisdiction of the contract lies (unless this is modified within the contract). All jurisdictions in Australia have classification enforcement acts. Only Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania has a loophole in their legislation which allows for the sale of unclassified content over the internet (from my research I cannot find any arguments that says the internet is a public place).

Therefore in most jurisdictions even games that can be called computer games under s5A of the Classifications Act (almost all of them) MUST be classified.

"Now we'll complicate the mix by introducing the ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority), who will also get to do game classification for games online, downloadable, or otherwise being sold beyond the present jurisdiction of the Australian ratings system and Classifications Acts."

Incorrect. There is no legislation for this to occur. Currently all complaints are filed with ACMA. They will investigate and deem the content "not contentious" or "contentious". If the latter then it is referred to the Classifications Board for a rating. Once a rating of beyond M is applied then ACMA can take action. All content rated MA or R (the internet btw is rated like films) must have an age verification for it to be acceptable.

"Alternatively, if you're an MMOG publisher, you can choose to skip the compulsory ratings process entirely – especially if you do not think your product will pass it – and everyone just looks the other way, based on an assumed technicality that does not actually exist in law. A seeming conspiracy of silence surrounds the practice among government agencies."

Not true. Enforcement is done by the States who basically wont act unless someone tells them of a breach of the act. MMOG's come under s5A of the classification act. WoW was originally submitted to the classification board who at the time did not have any consultants on staff to help them make a decision as they has no idea how to rate this new type of game. As a result they sent it back. Technically the game shouldn't have been released. The problem is now that the Classification Board has worked out how to rate the game. Eve online for example has been rated.

"Does anyone think that virtual environments like Second Life will be exempt from the proposed network-blocking?"
Incorrect. It will only be banned as it is an unclassified game. If Linden submits the game to the classification board and rate it, then the game will not be banned. It's that simple really.

Posted: Jun 30th 2009 8:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dow Jones v Gutnick is inapplicable to that part, as it is about the legal jurisdiction of the sale portion of a commercial transaction, and not a matter of publishing. Indeed, the Classifications Enforcement Act doesn't deal with publication/publishing at all.

As for WoW, there were similar MMOGs which received classification from the Classification Board prior to the publication of WoW. Blizzard says that World of Warcraft was never submitted for classification, and the Classification Board says the same thing.

Second Life contains some small percentage of content that we believe is refused classification in Australia. If it was submitted to the classifications board, we do believe that it would be RC.
Reply

Posted: Jul 2nd 2009 4:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I do wonder why people don't do a little research first, even the SMH did not bother this time. There is NOT going to be any banning of Australia or Australians to Second Life. There must have been a quiet week on the gamer blogs to beat this one up, way out of all proportion. I have an update on my blog if you care to read it, you can find it here: http://arabellasteadham.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/australia-banned-in-secondlife-noway-mate/

Posted: Jul 7th 2009 12:06AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The issue isn't "banning" it is "blocking access to".

In Australia the transcripts of what is said in Parliament are known as “Hansard”. Senator Conroy’s specific answer to the question about blocking (not banning - blocking access) can be read here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/senate/dailys/ds220609.pdf

Page 95 (PDF page 109), Scott Ludlam, Question 1496.13: “Will computer games exceeding the requirements of the MA15+ classification be RC and potentially blocked by ISPs on a mandatory basis for adults; if not, what other exceptions to RC would be similarly permitted.”

Page 96 (PDF page 110), Stephen Conroy’s Answer: “Computer games that exceed an MA15+ rating are deemed to be RC content as there is no R18+ or X18+ rating. RC content will be included in the mandatory filtering of RC content under the Government’s proposal. Issues relating to the classification of computer games fall within the Attorney-General’s portfolio.

Posted: Jul 10th 2009 12:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Linden management of tickets and deplorable and there were many violations, the first phase should be directed to the merchant and can be noticed that a lot of benefit of the individual lots are not traders, some traders doing more in the adult not been categorized as such, and were proposing to buy their land.

So we can ask many questions especially since the avatars have obtained lots are recent or dealer of land.

Many old avatar, we decided to close their account paid to go on Opensim

Posted: Jul 10th 2009 12:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Their management of tickets (it's very strange), the first phase should be directed to the merchant and can be noticed that a lot of benefit of the individual lots are not traders, some traders doing more in the adult not been categorized as such, and were proposing to buy their land.

So we can ask many questions especially since the avatars have obtained lots are recent or dealer of land.

Many old avatar, we decided to close their paid account to go on Opensim

Posted: Aug 13th 2009 2:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I cannot help but wonder if Linden Labs is having this crack down on Xstreet merchants listing RL brand names for items to be sold in Second Life, because of the Taser Vs. The Crack den Lawsuit that was dropped.
https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/community/blog/2009/08/11/updates-to-xstreet-sl-listing-guidelines


https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/community/blog/2009/08/11/updates-to-xstreet-sl-listing-guidelines

Why is it a few who seem to ruin all of the fun for the rest of us?

Featured Stories

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW