I wrote a short and sweet e-mail to Mr. Atkinson regarding his stance on the matter, and he responded to me with a form letter that was also sent out to other Australians who contacted him (credit to a redditor who scanned and uploaded this copy).

The letter essentially quoted a bunch of the same old tired statistics and was coupled with a healthy dose of Atkinson paranoia, logical fallacies and at the end, a rather roundabout way of saying “fuck you” to gamers Australia-wide.

I wrote a response, which is below, and here.

The Hon Michael Atkinson MP

11th Floor
45 Pirie Street
Adelaide SA 5000

Thank-you for your response to my e-mail concerning the lack of an R18+ classification for video games. It is certainly refreshing to see that an MP is willing to engage in discussion with individual members of the public, even if it is by form letter.

As your response has spanned several pages, I will quote the relevant section of your letter as I respond to it.

“Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys- General, like me, reject it. Hitherto, Attorneys-General have not agreed to create an R. 18+ category for computer games. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R. 18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening rod for the gamers.”

If I were in your position, I would be quite annoyed. That aside, your belief that other Attorneys-General support your position is not verifiable by any publicly available information. Indeed, most news reports seem to put the blame for the lack of a discussion paper squarely on your shoulders. There are many, many references to this online, but the most important I think is a direct quote of Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls; “I fully support there being consultation on this issue, but ultimately SCAG is waiting for the South Australian attorney to agree to consult on the matter.”

“[...] With people travelling so readily between States and Territories, a State-based classification coding system would be unworkable and useless [...]”

I agree, the only way to properly introduce the rating is nationally through the OFLC.

“I am baffled and worried about why proponents of R. 18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’”

This is the crux of the argument, and I think the major point of contention between yourself and gamers such as myself. The point of having an R18+ classification is not to allow access to explicit content, the point is to enable adults to make their own decisions about what is and is not suitable for themselves and their children.

In your letter, you go on to cite many examples of games that have been refused classification on the grounds of containing extreme violence or explicit sexual content. The examples cited are relevant to this discussion in an ancillary fashion, but to debate the validity of each and every game between yourself, myself, and the Australian public is obviously not a workable model. The main point of contention as I mentioned earlier is not one game in particular, it is the ability for adults to decide for themselves what games they want to play.

“[...] These are all activities that are illegal for individuals in the real world so why ask governments to give people the right to do them virtually?”

Why ask governments to give people the right to watch films which contain illegal activity, or read books which contain illegal activity? It’s a rhetorical question, and you’re avoiding the issue by posing it.

“Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R. 18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are keen to have R. 18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.”

Your inability to understand is a common theme in your stance on this issue. Here’s an easily enforced safeguard: require proof of age for purchase of games rated R18+. It works for alcohol, cigarettes and everything else, so why not games?

“Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accessible to children. If adults think they can devise a lock-out system to defeat children, tell ‘em they’re dreaming.”

Replace the words “electronic games” with anything else (some examples: drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, pornography), and one is lead to ask, whose responsibility is it to protect children from explicit material? You’ve already answered my question:

“It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is.”

All modern gaming systems have parental control safeguards in place that allow the restriction of games operation on the device. It is possible to restrict a particular system, using a password, from playing games which are outside a parent-defined safe range. All of these systems require escalation to the relevant customer support agents to have “forgotten” parental control passwords reset (I.e., the child trying to circumvent the system would have to go to some lengths). This nullifies your assertion that parental controls are useless.

These systems are easy to use and setting them up is straightforward. There is no reason at all for parents not to make use of these systems if they are concerned about the material their children are able to access while playing electronic games. More to the point, introduction of an R18+ rating should have absolutely no effect on children what-so-ever. The Australian gaming public cannot understand how you are so ignorant of this fact. By definition, a person over the age of 18 is not a child, therefore the introduction of such a rating will have no effect upon children, as they are not legally allowed to view the material.

What happens if the safeguard does fail? You’ve answered that question:

“It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is.”

A parent intervening in their child’s entertainment is normal; indeed it is expected of every responsible parent. You trying to govern in such a way as to protect the few children of irresponsible parents at the liberty of adults is unfair. “One bad apple spoils the cart” is an extreme oversimplification of the issue.

“What the present law does is to keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts the adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.”

Once again we touch upon the crux of the argument: this is not about granting access to explicit material, it is about allowing adults to make their own decisions. You say that you are prepared to accept this infringement upon the liberty of an adult in order to protect children, despite the fact that this discussion and its potential outcome has no relevance at all to children.

“[...] There may be games some people consider too violent for M.A. 15+ but the solution is not to create a classification to permit even more violent games in Australia. [...]”

This kind of blanketing of the ratings system does not serve the best interests of parents or young children. I would say, and many would agree with me, that the OFLC having to shoe-horn games into a smaller number of classification categories would only serve to make decisions more difficult which would lead to a higher rate of poor decisions. Essentially, games which should receive an R18+ style rating may indeed be passed as MA15+ even though there are elements of said games which are not suitable for this rating. An example recently discussed is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2: during one scene the player takes on the role of a terrorist who is participating in an attack upon a commercial airport and has the option to kill innocent civilians. The fact that killing civilians is not required to fulfill the mission objectives is relevant, but despite that, this type of gameplay scenario really is better suited to adults.

“It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the deliberations of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.”

Your lack of confidence in the OFLC is well-known after your interview with the Peter Mares of the ABC recently. Your approach to this is confusing. You say that the OFLC does not make correct decisions, as you admitted that the MA15+ rating of Modern Warfare 2 was inappropriate. Your criticism of the OFLC is unfounded: it is similar to asking a carpenter to produce a smooth wooden surface without using any high-grit sandpaper, or asking a painter to draw fine lines without a fine-tipped brush. Without the correct tools, neither the OFLC nor the carpenter and painter can do their job properly. Your argument here is circular: ‘the OFLC makes incorrect decisions with the current ratings system, therefore the OFLC will continue to make incorrect decisions with a new ratings system’. You are committing a logical fallacy.

You mentioned in your letter that recently the game Left 4 Dead 2 was given an RC rating. A resubmitted version in which much of the violence and gore was removed has been approved by the OFLC at MA15+. Do you know that the majority of Australian gamers who play this game today are actually playing the RC version? This has been achieved using two popular methods: buying the overseas version (typically with a credit card, so under 18′s need not apply), or, using a small computer programme to modify the game to enable the restricted content. This programme was created by an Australian gamer who was unhappy with the OFLCs decision and wanted to get the “full” version of the game. Any child with five minutes to spare can download this programme and enable the banned version of the game. What is my point? My point is that parents who made their decision about buying Left 4 Dead 2 for their children based on the rating MA15+ have done so under a false pretense provided for them by OFLC; the OFLC has failed in this instance.

You repeatedly contradict yourself.

“[...] I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults. […]

But then you go on to state:

“It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is.”

So, which is it? Can adults make decisions for themselves or not? Please note that “adults” and “parents” are not mutually exclusive groups as your language seems to imply.

“I am next up for election in March, 2010. The State District I represent is called Croydon. I would welcome advocates of R. 18+ computer games testing public acceptance of my policy by standing a candidate against me in that general election. I think you will find this issue has little traction with my constituents who are more concerned with real-life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds.”

The Australian public is rising to your challenge. A group called “Gamers4Croydon” is in the process of establishing a competing candidate for this very election. Frankly, I am appalled by your lack of candour. Attempting to trivialise the discussion makes an example of your ignorance; summarising your “reasoned and considered” position with one of the most ignorant and illogical statements I’ve yet seen made on this topic only serves to bolster the arguments against your position.

You have demonstrated several times in this letter your lack of understanding of the subject at hand. Let’s take a look at the language you’ve used throughout: “I believe”, “I am baffled and worried”, “I expect”, “I imagine”, “I cannot fathom”, “To my mind”, etc. This type of language indicates that you are following your personal beliefs which I have shown to be created through partial erroneous thought. Worryingly, your use of terms which directly indicate your lack of understanding are also common. If you really have so little comprehension of the topic, then how is it that you can consider yourself suitable for the position of advising on it?

Not only are your arguments logically flawed, your evidence is dubious at best. There have been so many studies conducted on the effect of violent games on children and young adults with none conclusively proving anything on either side of the argument. Your platform stands entirely upon a single study of dubious nature.

I sincerely hope that the Gamers4Croydon group are successful and the next election in the seat of Croydon sees you removed from office. Whatever the outcome of the election, your views as expressed in this correspondence and in news media are outdated and narrow-minded and your methods of enforcing said views are ham-fisted at best.

Yours sincerely,

Having voiced my opinion on this topic several times in the past, I left the thread alone for a time until there were comments I could just not ignore. I was rewarded of course after only 119 posts with this:

The major and minor thing some people here want are “free” downloads of intellectual property, such as movies, games, software, music, and other copyrighted material. You want stuff for free. It’s not about property rights, it’s about the intention to possess and use something you do not want to pay the asked price for. If it were not for the possibility to get your hands on such material via file sharing, there would not be any discussion.

I responded with this:

http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183

The point is this: music IS free whether you want to believe that or not. Every piece of music you can think of is available free right now a click away. This is a fact – it sucks as the musician BUT THAT’S THE WAY IT IS (for now). So… have the public get what they want FROM YOU instead of a torrent site and garner good will in the process

And the poster I responded to responded to me with this:

Copyrighted material, including music is not free, was never free, and will never be free. Such false statements are the core of the problem. Some kids might even believe the nonsense.

My response:

There will never be a technological means to prevent file sharing on the scale that it exists today. It may be reduced somewhat, and others may be discouraged with new laws, but everything that exists in an uncontrollable format today will always exist, as is, in one way or another, accessible by the general public for free.

Perhaps new technologies will prevent future releases from being piratable, but I very much doubt that. BluRay is supposedly “un-piratable” but it is regularly pirated. Look at BluRay adoption versus DVD sales. BluRay is slowly and steadily gaining market share, but it is nowhere near surpassing that of DVD. This is in part due to the fact that people don’t care about the great features of BluRay (I personally love hi-def), but it would also be because people do not want to buy into such a restrictive format.

The more control the labels have over the end-users use of a product or service, the less that informed people will want to make use of said service. DRM is a failure, so now the labels have changed tacts and laws are being changed. Will it work? I personally don’t think so.

I will continue to buy CDs and transcode them to my preferred digital format irrespective of the legality of such an action (I actually believe this was made legal in Australia in the last few years). I will also continue to download high-quality rips of CDs for the purposes of evaluation before I decide to buy them. This is illegal in Australia. Do I end up buying CDs that I download? Yes. What do I do with albums I don’t buy? Honestly, I just keep them. I never listen to them, so I could delete them. I’m just too lazy to do so. Anyway, I don’t really see a problem with this. I don’t share my music collection with others.

According to you, and the law, I am stealing. According to me, I am stealing, but there is no victim. I don’t listen to music that I don’t like, and the artist isn’t missing any money that I “stole” by not paying. Maybe I should purge my collection of artists I don’t listen to; that’d probably make you happy, but I personally am not bothered. I have no concern for labels because I believe they are dishonest anyway.

His response:

Of course there is a victim. The copyright owner who is supposed to get a fee. We have covered this, even if you believe that the labels are dishonest, our law system does not allow you take from them. Also: This has only partially to do with “labels”, illegal downlands are not only referring to music. What about the thousands of companies and their staff who produce games and software that is illegally distributed by file sharing? How about the production companies that produce movies that are illegally distributed by file sharing, or direct downloads?

My response:
“Our law system does not allow you to take from them” – well, actually it does. I could at any time decide to download literally several terabytes of pirated music which is freely available on the internet. The practicality of the matter is what you seem to be ignoring. Or, in another way, the impracticality of preventing the spread of such material is what you seem to be ignoring. This kind of spreading cannot be stopped, and instead of embracing this method of distribution, the labels are sticking their head in the sand. As Trent Reznor says, it’s better that fans download direct from the source rather than from an unknown website.

An interesting note is that those who are wanting to abolish or change copyright law really are doing themselves and the artists they love a disservice by spreading this kind of sentiment. The Creative Commons relies on copyright law to support it. The original owner should maintain copyright on their material (reading between the lines: the artists should maintain copyright, not the labels). This gives them the freedom to licence their material under a Creative Commons style licence. In other words, it gives the true owner the power to disseminate their works as they see fit. This is a fundamental right and this copyright law should not be changed, save for some small wording amendments which may be made to reduce the ambiguity surrounding “free downloads” versus “illegal downloads”.

I’ll say this straight: I believe that pirating any material is wrong, but what I am saying is that I believe my use of this material should not be considered piracy. I do not download movies (they are poor quality and without special features, the main selling points of the original material). I only download games that are no longer available for purchase (be it from a bricks and mortar store or online at sites like www.gog.com). It’s kind of funny really how woefully inadequate most companies are at keeping an up-to-date back catalogue of their material, be it music, games or movies, but I digress.

What I do with music, as I outlined previously, is not stealing. I download an evaluation copy and then if I like it I buy it and if I don’t, I don’t listen to it anymore. I am no longer using this material, thus it is no different than if I visited a record store every day and listened to the album in-store and decided not to buy it after a week. The difference is that I don’t have to waste my time in a record store by using technology to overcome the problem. Record labels should embrace this: they will sell more. It’s pretty straightforward.

This is an ongoing discussion and I will update this post in the future, but what are your thoughts so far?

What can we do about it? Well, we can e-mail this guy: Michael Atkinson

Not sure what to write? Here’s one I prepared earlier:

Hon Michael Atkinson,

In light of the OFLCs recent decision to Refuse Classification to the upcoming PC game Left 4 Dead 2, I am writing to you in the hopes that I may be able to enlighten yourself and the Attorney-General’s Department on why the lack of an R18+ classification for games is not in the best interests of the Australian public.

Instead of re-writing the many great arguments in support of the R18+ classification, I will link to an excellent article published by the ABC earlier in the year:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/16/2516911.htm

The full text of which is below:

Adult rating for video games long overdue
By Ron Curry

Posted Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:30am AEDT
Updated Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:43am AEDT

When Steven Spielberg announced in 2005 that he would partner with a major games developer to collaborate on a number of games, saying at the time that he had “watched the game industry grow from a niche into a major creative force in entertainment”, there was no denying that the often marginalised industry had come into its own.

With renowned directors Peter Jackson and James Cameron following suit, it has become clear that video games had moved into the mainstream. Once deemed strictly the domain of teen boys locked in their bedrooms, the video game industry now rivals the film industry both in terms of revenue and in the range of diverse content it produces.

In January this year the industry announced that in 2008 sales of interactive games and hardware had grown a staggering 47 per cent to $1.96 billion dollars, with the largest growth category being “family entertainment” which grew by 58 per cent compared to 2007. While family gaming is quickly growing as a category, it is adults who represent the ‘average consumers’ of interactive entertainment. The most recent research, The Interactive Australia 2009 study, conducted by Bond University and commissioned by the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia found that the average age of an Australian game player is 30. It’s clear that if 30 is the average, then there are many more ‘gamers’ who are older than that.

So with interactive entertainment now closely mirroring the film industry and given the majority of game players are adults, it would come as a surprise to many that Australia is the only developed country not to have a video game classification category that allows these adults to enjoy content which is age appropriate. Instead, they are limited to content that is deemed suitable for a person of 15.

Prior to 1973, Australia did not have an R18+ classification for film in what was then, and is now, largely viewed as draconian censorship laws depriving adults of the ability to make informed choices about what they viewed. The public debate at the time shares many themes with current discussions about the introduction of an adult rating for video games. Should entertainment be morally edifying? Will civilised society as we know it collapse with the sanctioned availability of adult content? Will exposure to ‘antisocial’ themes in this content prompt copycat behaviour?

For the 91 per cent of both gamers and non-gamers surveyed for the Interactive Australia 09 study who responded that they were in favour of the introduction of an R18+ classification, these concerns do not seem to be an issue. In fact, many respondents were unaware that there wasn’t a relevant classification for games catering for mature content. These are the same adults who are confident they could protect their children from accessing this content in the same way they do from adult only film or literature.

While the lack of an R18+ rating does raise questions about adult’s rights to make choices about the content they view or play, it also has a number of other implications as the technology industry as a whole continues to move at warp speed.

With technology convergence blurring the distinction between different styles of media content, managing appropriate classification content within an inconsistent regime is increasingly difficult. The argument for harmonising not only the guidelines but also the classification scheme for films and computer and video games is compelling. To add perspective, the current legislation was written in 1994, long before the DVD was in use, let alone current generation gaming and mobile devices. As all entertainment mediums continue to evolve and collide, harmonisation of classification content (rather than delivery method) becomes increasingly important.

Finally, it is important to point out that the proposed R18+ classification for computer and video games will not result in the availability of games containing excessive violence or explicit sex. Material within the R18+ classification would be strictly limited with permissible content set out in the classification guidelines and material exceeding the R18+ guidelines would be refused a classification; just as it exists today for film and video.

The introduction of a consistent and content-specific classification system will offer consumers the information they need to confidently make choices of the entertainment content which is appropriate for them and their families.

Moving forward, a decision to approve the introduction of an R18+ rating for games must be made unanimously by attorneys general across the country. For the past six years Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General, has maintained a long-running opposition to the proposed system, blocking its introduction.

In March 2008 however, a decision was made to take the matter to public consultation, a process that is expected to materialise in a public forum this year. As an industry, we are looking forward to the opportunity for genuine and open community discussion on the subject.

Ron Curry is CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia

As is noted at the end of the article, the author obviously has a vested interest in the availability of as many PC games as possible in the Australian market. While he may indeed be biased, the point is this: ask any gamer over the age of 18, and they’ll fully agree with him.

As an adult, I believe that I am the only one capable of making the decision of what is appropriate for me to watch, listen to, read or indeed — play.

Of course we have the classifications scheme in place as a guide for adults to make decisions about what material their children has access to, and there are R18+ or similar-style ratings for all other types of medium as I’m sure you’re aware.

Video gamers of Australia are all scratching their head and posing the question, “Why not video games too?”

- Owen

Plaintext found here.

Seems to me that our politicians are a huge fan of FUD campaigning. Advertisements which offer white bold text on black backgrounds, black and white images of politicians with ambiguous but implied compromising facial expressions, deep voiceovers and abrupt , harsh sound effects.

All political parties do when advertising is slag off other campaigners. It’s all well and good that MP Joe Bloggs is apparently a nasty man who says silly things and gesticulates ridiculously while doing so, but what do you have to offer in his place?

Nothing?

I thought as much.

DMCA and Google delisting

In various incidents documented in such publications as The New York Times, Slashdot and Wired,[21] Scientology has also used the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force notable Web sites (including the Google search engine)[22] to remove the Operation Clambake homepage, and several leaflets containing copyrighted information, from their indexes.[23][24] Because the Xenu.net site itself is based in Norway, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.[25][15][26]

In March 2002, Google agreed to limit access to material critical of Scientology on www.xenu.net, after it was sued by the Church of Scientology for copyright infringement.[26][27][28] Information the Church of Scientology had objected to included an internal report on the death of Lisa McPherson, and images of L. Ron Hubbard.[29] Google received criticism for its actions, and The Guardian reported that Operation Clambake suspected the Church of Scientology was mainly concerned about secret documents where “L Ron Hubbard is said to describe how an alien galactic ruler called Xenu is the root of all human woe.”[30] After Operation Clambake was delisted by Google, free speech advocates besieged Google, complaining that the company was censoring search results.[31] Prior to Google’s delisting of the Operation Clambake site, CBC News reported that the site was listed fourth in a search for “Scientology.”[32] However after Google’s actions, Xenu.net did not appear in searches for “Scientology”.[33]

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

I appreciate that many of you may not believe, appreciate or even understand the idealistic nature of my ‘crusade’ against establishment, but please bare with me, and do try to pay attention as you read on…

From the growth of free culture to overcoming language and regional distances a free internet and a free software technology to access that free communication network will allow people to communicate freely across borders sharing ideas, works and resolutions.

This is a vision of a new future. A future that will be made so by the current generation of young people, contributing their resources globally to the betterment of society. The current state of ‘e-community’ around the world is advancing rapidly through its stages of reaction, both technologically, sociologically, and politically, supported by a large, uncontrollable catalyst: the internet. Never before have so many individuals been able to become a major proponent in modern society’s revolutionary paradigm shift. This shift is happening faster than many people can understand or appreciate. Many of today’s corporations and governments are stuck permanently within infinitely cyclic thought processes that revolve around outdated business practices and political ideals. These people will be beaten at their own game by those whom they tried to swindle, cheat and thieve every last penny from.

What proof do I have of this?

One major example is the advent and exponential growth of Sweden’s Pirate Party, an outcome that Dvorak touches on in his article, asserting: “once the next-generation youth finally figure out that they can take over at the ballot box, all hell will break loose.” The Pirate Party have taken that assertion one step further; creating their own party, and not relying on the Harvard business students of the nineteen-seventies currently in power.

When Sweden-based BitTorrent tracker site ThePirateBay was raided by police, consequent media attention helped raise awareness of the Pirate Party’s goals, and the party gained 1430 members over two days, following the initial media frenzy. They are well on their way to gaining the minimum four per cent vote required to instate members of their party into the Swedish government.

While I personally do not agree with much of the Pirate Party’s political platform (they wish to abolish all copyright laws — however, this is self-defeating, as the GPL, a popular open source licence, gets its teeth from current copyright laws), their intentions are noble and they have made a stand for themselves in the face of tough opposition.

The youth of today have a more powerful methods of communication at their disposal than any generation previously. With the advent and consequent popularity of the internet, never before has the world seen such a massive potential for communication of ideas, concepts, arts and media.

The establishment darkens our doorway with threats of DRM, news of frivolous lawsuits, and questionable business practices, yet we are empowered by the internet, and our ability to communicate freely with it.