Submitted by: Brendan Scott

Care of:

Level 37

2 Park Street

Sydney 2001

This submission is made in my personal capacity, not on behalf of my employer.

Dated: 31 October 2001

By taking an overly paternal approach to the classification of content Australia risks rendering itself irrelevant. The fundamental flaw with the existing rating system is that it assumes distribution channels and corporate self interest in compliance with rating schemes. It is based on a model where consumers purchase from publishers, with no sale or resale by consumers. While we have some way to go, the indications are that, in the networked world of the future, consumers will cease being mere consumers and will begin to also be publishers and distributors. The most effective means of regulation of such an organic system is to encourage self compliance with classification systems by both consumers and producers.

For example, at the start of the internet revolution sites such as jennicam.org became hugely successful simply by providing real time video of a given person. In the United States this has taken a more sinister turn with online voyeur sites spying on individuals and posting photos or videos of them on the internet.

If we have a world of merged consumer/producers in which producers of material are not necessarily producing material for monetary profit and in which the distribution of material occurs through consumers "pulling" content to them, then the availability of accurate classification information about content will become crucially important to consumers. However, any complex administrative structure or a structure which is overly punitive of legal, but "dissenting material" will result in the new breed of producer ignoring the classification regime because they have no interest in compliance, or because they do not have the administrative apparatus in place to enable compliance.

Alternatively, a stricter classification system ought to apply to content made available for sale (or bundled as part of other goods and services), with a more permissive, but easy to apply system for the emerging cottage industry of producers. In this regard the ultimate aim of the classification system should permit individuals to accurately self rate depictions of legal activity without threat of sanctions for correct description.

Response: yes, subject to provisos.

The framing of this issue misunderstands the emerging economy in that it presupposes that the classification system is designed to serve the aims of the "entertainment industry" and, in particular, that Australian citizens will be passive consumers of the media the subject of classification rather than creators or distributors of that content.

Response: No.

The material which is available over the internet is vast and, for practical purposes, limitless. The most effective means of regulation of such an organic system is to encourage self compliance whether by consumers or producers. This does not even attempt to take account of the ability of consumers to bypass content restrictions. A system should be developed which encourages self rating of material, coupled with a misrepresentation type enforcement regime to ensure that consumers are provided with adequate information about the content they are obtaining.

Failing to provide such a system is an endorsement of the creation of a content underground.

Response: No.

The current system is inappropriate and assumes that only children play games. There is a prevalence of gaming among adults, whether it be gambling games, poker machines or games machines. The current generation of the generation of children who grew up with Nintendo and Sega games consoles in the early to mid nineties are now in their early twenties and see computer game playing as a social activity in a way previous generations have not.

A classification system which anticipates that adult content will be available from within a game should be developed. In particular there are games which contain a level of graphic violence (eg. Soldier of Fortune by Raven Software – a review of the game is available from: http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=sof). The game falls into the category of "3D shooter" in which players score points by "killing" other players. However, it is common for games with high levels of violence to include "blocking" codes which reduce the level of violence simulated. A classification system for games should notify purchasers of:

Games often employ a system of "skins" which allow the visual representation of the game to be changed after the game has been purchased and without (or against) the permission of the publisher. Expansion packs for games can achieve the same result. Not all of these "skins" or expansion packs are created by the manufacturers of the game, many are created by enthusiasts using commonly available applications. Indeed, a game’s appeal can be partly due to its ability to be expanded and/or customised. This is an example of consumers as producers as highlighted above. Further, the skins available may be determined by the server to which the player is connecting, with the player having to download the skin (without knowing its content) prior to accessing the server. For example, in the game Soldier of Fortune there are custom skins available which permit players to portray themselves as naked (albeit highly pixellated) vixen. I understand that there is a hack (unsupported by the makers of the game) of the once popular game Tomb Raider which permits the player to show Lara Croft, the main character of the storyline, naked throughout the game.

This example is intended to highlight the fact that classification at point of sale may be entirely irrelevant if the game may be subsequently modified (and by such an extent as to place it into a different ratings category), especially if that modification is done by players – ie persons with no vested interest in future sales and therefore less amenable to the coercive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

As a general principle if material is available to a person in the form of a movie, it should remain available to that person in the form of a game under the same access restrictions. For example, MA15+ games should be available to people in the same manner as MA15+ films are and similarly for all other categories.

Were I to create a classification system it would have vectors for each category of material – such as violence or adult themes, with each category parameterised by some value (eg 1-5).

Response: No response.

I am unable to provide a response on this issue by the deadline for submissions. I seek an extension of time in this regard to respond further.

The current guidelines suffer from a lack of underlying unifying principles and are rather a mis-mash of ad hoc prohibitions. In particular, matters relating to sex are treated as inherently more offensive than matters relating to crime or violence. These categories should be treated equivalently. For example, it is perfectly legal to depict crimes – even to glorify murder or genocide and still fall within generalist ratings categories. However any explicit depiction of legal sexual activity is implictly categorised as "more evil" by a more restricted classification under the rules. This is especially striking given the apparent obsession our society has with things sexual (for example, matters sexual are a perpetual topic of monthly women’s magazines and has had numerous network television shows devoted to it (such as "Sex in the City")).

For example, late on the night of Saturday 28 October I happened to see an excerpt from the film Casino aired on free to air TV in Canberra. The excerpt I saw showed mobsters clubbing two people to death baseball bats, with particular shots indicating (but not expressly depicting) clubbing to the head of the victims. The editing did not show the bat connecting with the body of either victim. This scene depicted two murders in a brutal and grisly fashion, with the battered bodies of the victims dragged into a shallow grave. This scene was particularly shocking/offensive yet still fell within a classification which permitted it to be shown on network television. Children are entitled to the same level of protection from this kind of content as for content relating to, for example adult themes.

Instruction in matters of crime or violence:

This characteristic is far too broad. Content which promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime (or violence) is an offence (definition of RC material). This is true regardless of the nature of the offence (shoplifting in the Rabelais case, but it could equally apply to content instructing in jay walking). Further, strictly applied, this category would cause many popular films to be classified RC. Either this characteristic should be clarified (for example, to apply only to crimes which carry a maximum penalty of, say, 12 years) or should be applied more rigorously.

There are fundamental problems with the application of existing censorship laws when applied to internet content. In particular, drafting ambiguities which imply that physical articles rather than content are the subject of classification. Now would be an appropriate opportunity to create a consistent and sensible categorisation system.

I am unable to provide a more detailed response on this issue by the deadline for submissions. I seek an extension of time in this regard to respond further.