Gamers4Croydon, the Australian political party formed with the goal of knocking incumbent South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson out of office, recently revealed a handful of new candidates.

Kat Nicholson, the group’s candidate for Croydon, and Gamers4Croydon President Chris Prior, who is running for Legislative Council, were the first two candidates to emerge from the group, back in January of this year.

The latest political hopefuls to be unveiled include:

• Tom Birdseye – Candidate for Adelaide and Deputy Treasurer of Gamers4Croydon. A Mechatronic Engineer, Tom is described as “an advocate for parental responsibility, government transparency, and common sense legislation ahead of vested interests.”

• David Egge – Candidate for Norwood and Deputy President of Gamers4Croydon. Egge is an R&D Engineer and believes in “accountability, responsibility, liberty, and putting people before politics.”

• Matt Allpress – Candidate for Light and Deputy Registered Officer of Gamers4Croydon. Allpress is owner of an IT consultancy group.

• Ben Ernst – Candidate for Mawson and a Civil Engineer and Software Developer. Ernst hopes “that his future children deserve to grow up in an Australia where they can be assured of their freedoms, where legislation is sensible and where government serves the people.”

The group’s policy section also appears to have recently been filled out. Among the measures Gamers4Croydon supports are: opposition to mandatory Internet filtering, a ban on political advertising that uses public funds, a repeal of legislation that restricts the display of R18+ DVDs and marriage equality.

Gamers4Croydon also supports measures that would make it illegal for politicians to “lie about matters of public importance.” To that end the group stated:

Your freedom of choice is being eroded each and every time a politician lies, bends the truth or is creative with the facts. Politicians need to be judged on what they can deliver, not the tales they can tell. Legislation to punish politicians for deceiving the public would go a long way toward making that a reality.

Does it sound like they are referring to anyone in particular?


Thanks Ryan!

The talking head from the Council on Children and the Media, who claimed in an Australian TV report that videogames are to violence like cigarettes are to lung cancer, is just a sock puppet of South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson.

Dr. Wayne Warburton made the claim in a piece that aired on Australia’s Ten network earlier this week. News.com reports that the Council on Children and Media, also known as Young Media Australia, has received tens of thousands of dollars in funding from Atkinson.

A spokesperson for Atkinson verified the link, which sees the group receive a grant annually in order to fund its Know Before You Go project, which is designed to provide information to parents on what films are suitable for children.

While Atkinson’s office would not reveal the amount of money that changed hands, a Labor MP talking in parliament in 2006 put the figure at $33,000.

Council on Children and the Media CEO Barbara Biggins said that Atkinson has no influence on the group’s view on videogames, “It's the only project that's funded by him and it's been funded for years now. And I think good on him for helping parents to understand the classification system better. That doesn't mean that we owe him anything in terms of what we do with campaigns.”

Update: Wow, Jack Thompson actually made a great point in relation to this story. In between urging me to pay attention and calling Hal Halpin my puppet master, JT notes that Dr. Craig Anderson made a similar reference to cancer in a 2003 paper on violent games:

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.

Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

Update 2: Texas A&M Texas A&M International University researcher, and nemesis of Dr. Anderson, Christopher Ferguson also wrote in to point us towards a research paper of his (PDF) that goes to great lengths to debunk Anderson’s claims which JT referenced above.


Thanks to everyone who sent this story in!

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, who has no problem casting verbal stones at his political opponents, is apparently unable to weather similar volleys lobbed at himself.

Atkinson is up in arms over a December 8, 2009 story that appeared on the website AdelaideNow which reported on a gathering of motorcycle club members.  In a resulting user comment on the story, someone referred to the South Australian AG as a “crook.” The comment (#86) was quickly removed from the story and two apologies were issued.

The commenter in question, Dean McQuillan, used his real name in his post and has subsequently received a letter from Atkinson’s lawyers alleging that the comment was “highly defamatory” towards Atkinson. The AG’s lawyers requested $20,000 as compensation and the “publication of a full retraction and apology.”

McQuillan told ABC’s MediaWatch that he is bankrupt and replied to Atkinson’s lawyers with a “robust response,” but has heard nothing since.

MediaWatch offered its own take on the situation:

The state's chief law officer is prepared to threaten an ordinary citizen with ruin for posting rude remarks on the net, even when they were taken down within a couple of hours.

Again, this is a man (Atkinson) who said that he expected his political opposition from the  Gamers4Croydon party to utilize ”criminal activities and dirty tricks” in their campaign against him.

Atkinson also tried to suppress online comments earlier this year in advance of the coming elections by introducing a law that would force users to publish their real name and post code alongside their comments.  A civil outcry forced  him to repeal the measure.

|Via Games.On.net|

Thanks SeanB and PHC Corp

As reported by Adelaide Now, the discussion over whether to add an R18+ ratings category for videogames in Australia has been scheduled for an undisclosed date in April.

The timing of the discussion means that it will take place after state elections in South Australia and Tasmania on March 20. South Australia is, of course, home base for anti-game Attorney General Michael Atkinson, often fingered as the lone holdout among his fellow AGs when it comes to backing an R18+ rating category.

In related R18+ news, the Australian website GoldCoast penned an editorial backing the addition of an adult videogame rating category, stating that it should be up to parents to decide what their children view.

The editorial offered:

…banning a game does not in any real terms restrict its availability -- long gone are the days of being able to keep something out of the public's hands simply by keeping it off the shelves.

Banned games can be downloaded over the internet and shared -- circumventing the classification system. What is concerning is that if children are downloading these games, parents may not be aware of the content.

An R18+ category would at least allow them to be aware of the content of a game and its rating, and make an informed decision on whether their children should be exposed to it or not.

We do, after all, give parents that responsibility when it comes to DVDs and books.

Lastly, Gamers4Croydon posted a recent image that shows off the unbelievably fortuitous placement of one of their ads on the cover of the Adelaide Independent Weekly.

Thanks HarmlessBunny!

A story on GameSpot features the opinions of Electronic Arts and Aliens vs. Predator developer Rebellion as related to the R18+ videogame rating discussion ongoing in Australia.

The Aliens vs. Predator game was originally Refused Classification by The Classification Board before successfully winning an appeal and an MA15+ rating. Rebellion producer Paul Mackman spoke to GameSpot about Rebellion’s position that it would not modify the game to appease censors:

This was important to us and something Sega agreed with, and I think they handled the appeal process very well. It reached a successful result and you guys get to play the game and that's the important thing. The politics aside, [it’s] really not for me to comment on.

Mackman indicated that keeping the game true to the film source was Rebellion’s top priority, “…it's fair to say these are fiendish monsters from outer space and they do commit violent acts. Those are all represented in the films, so I don't think we would be true to the licence if we didn't portray that.”

Electronic Arts, who most recently clashed with the rating board over Left 4 Dead 2, provided a statement on their backing of an R18+ rating category:

Government policies that refuse to rate mature content effectively censor the content that adult players want to play. This shows a poor understanding of exactly who plays interactive games in Australia. The spectrum of gamers is as wide as the viewership of television, movies, theatre, and the readers of books.

A government policy that keeps our games out of stores and forces developers to rewrite code is censorship. Age rating systems are designed to help people make appropriate content choices for the right age groups.

In a related article, GameSpot notes that both the Australian Sex Party and the Pirate Party Australia have thrown their weight behind the introduction of an R18+ videogame rating category, while more traditional parties, such as the Greens and The Federal Coalition, have adopted a wait and see attitude.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam did offer his take on South Australian Attorney general Michael Atkinson however:

I think the position he took to block the rest of the country from moving forward was really unhelpful, and I don’t think he necessarily provided the arguments to back up the position he took.

Thanks Ryan!

An Australian TV report on violent games and their impact on the country’s youth uses a quote from a psychologist to claim that the link between violent videogames and youth crime is greater than the connection between smoking and lung cancer.

The Ten News report details recent violent crimes—the slashing of a “young customers” throat at a Kings Cross, Sydney chicken shack and a bouncer who had his face slashed in Melbourne in one “of a string of weapon attacks,” and then attempts to link a perceived rise in violence to games, stating  that, “Psychologist say the explosion in youth crime is inextricably linked to violent videogames and other media.

Next to appear, Dr. Wayne Warburton from the Council on Children and the Media, who apparently came up with the lung cancer comparison, as he stated, “It’s much greater that the effect of smoking and lung cancer. There’s a study showing that the average child sees in a childhood, 16,000 murders and 200,000 act of violence."

The Council is calling for an information packet to be mailed to every household in Australia.

Reporter Matt Doran then cites  unknown “experts” as saying that the game industry has much to account for, then attempts to lay some of the blame on “Modern Warfare: Call of Duty 2,” a title in which “gamers plot terror attacks against civilians.”

Wrapping up, Doran quotes “psychologists” as saying that “regular exposure to games like these actually rewires a child’s brain, making them more amenable to violence.” He then alludes to a conference on youth violence taking place in Sydney “later this month,” which will feature “the world’s leading researchers.” He added, “Tougher classifications for violent media will be top of the agenda.”

The Council on Children and Media has a section on its website dealing with the R18 Discussion Paper, which it claims came about as “a relentless push by gamers and the industry.” They are against the addition of an R18+ rating category for games and run down their opposition here.

Among their points:

The gaming industry and gamers make much of the supposedly maturing and gender-balanced population who play video games. So what? One can say the same thing about many populations, such as car drivers and alcohol users, without this being an argument for, in effect, making drinking or car driving more easily available to minors.

 
Thanks Graham and Jamie!

A former member of Australia’s Classification Board has submitted an incredibly well-written and reasoned response to the government issued Discussion Paper, regarding the topic of adding an R18+ rating category for games.

The 17-page response (PDF) was crafted by Paul J Hunt, who served as Deputy Director of the Classification Board and as a senior executive with the Office of Film and Literature Classification. He also lists himself as a “parent of teenagers who play computer games and a child of “Seniors” who play computer games.”

Hunt begins his argument by imparting first-hand knowledge into the current problems with the rating system:

When I made a decision, or participated in a decision, that a computer game was unsuitable for minors, I was forced to refuse classification for that game. It was not because I thought that the game depicted, expressed or otherwise dealt with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that it would offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. It was simply because the game was not OK for kids.

Not being able to restrict computer games to adults was an impediment to my ability to reflect Australian community standards.

Hunt offers another real example of how the lack of an R18+ rating affects gamers, comparing the rating of the movie Hannibal (rated R18+) and Grand Theft Auto III (which was Refused Classification). Hunt notes that, in the example, “…two products received different results, but both were assessed as suitable for the same adult audience. That the result does not reflect community standards is evident in the massive number of complaints… received by the OFLC regarding both the RC decision.”

A few more choice points from Hunt:

Some parents are irresponsible with the management of their children’s behaviour. If the reason for excluding an R18+ classification for games is to limit the access of the children of incompetent or irresponsible parents, then we should ban R18+ films, restricted publications, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. from our society.

There have been suggestions that an R18+ classification would include “sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence”. The guidelines do not permit their existence in the R18+ category.

Hunt addressed some of his responses directly to South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson’s claims that nobody cares about the R18+ issue, except for gamers:

Of even greater concern is the fact that Mr. Atkinson does not understand that most Australians are gamers, and therefore the majority of the population is familiar with game content.

 

All responses, including those from gamers, are responses from the Australian community. Whilst Mr. Atkinson may wish to marginalise gamers, and put down the knowledge of all Australians, I trust the Government will accept all submissions at face value as representative of the Australian community’s feelings on this issue.

Hunt concludes by using Atkinson’s own words against him:

There is a need to follow South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson’s advice on a recent similar issue regarding the rights and freedoms of Australians – an attempt to restrict political comment on the internet: "When one gets public opinion wrong, as I did, one has to change one's mind."

Hunt is now Principal Consultant for MLCS Management, a company that offers assistance with "classification services," such as pre-classification advice and help with the management of appeals.

Thanks Ryan!

A story on Monday detailed the submission to the Australian government of an EB Games and Grow Up Australia sponsored petition advocating the addition of an R18+ rating category.

Well, it turns out that a larger number was missing from that story, as over 30,000 people hand-signed the petition in EB Games retail outlets reports Adelaide Now. Combined with the 16,000 plus who virtually signed the document online, the petition was submitted with over 46,000 citizens backing it, a rather significant figure that hopefully Australian politicians will have to think twice about before dismissing.

Steve Wilson, Managing Director of EB Games, stated:

This groundswell of support has proven in no uncertain terms and once and for all, that there is not just a minority calling for this change, but rather everyday Australians.

Thanks HarmlessBunny!

As part of its reporting on trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, the Australian Government’s Institute of Criminology has issued a research paper that takes a look at transgressions that occur in virtual worlds.

Crime Risks of Three-Dimensional Virtual Environments was written by Ian Warren and Darren Palmer and kicks off with a mention of what may have been the first case of its kind—the “rape” of an avatar in the text-based game LambdaMoo. The incident resulted in a Village Voice piece on the incident, and eventually a book, and brought the issue of crime in virtual worlds to light.

A similar incident took place in Second Life in 2007 and actually caused Belgian police to patrol the online community to prevent rapes.

While virtual crimes such as money laundering or fraud can usually be handled by real-world laws, the grey area of harassment-type assaults online seems to continually confound authorities.

A few thoughts put forth by the paper:

The question of whether real-world notions of interpersonal harm apply to virtual assault or sexual assault is unresolved. This complicates the question of regulation within virtual worlds.

While civil redress for psychological harm is conceivable, the 'disembodied' character of such an incident would invariably bar liability for any crime against the person.

The paper notes that under Australian federal criminal law, a maximum penalty of three years could be levied on someone who menaces, harasses or causes offense to another user, though whether this law has ever been applied to virtual worlds is unclear.

Thanks to multinational users, jurisdictional uncertainties and technology that continues to evolve, “there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the role of criminal law in these multi-user categories.” The paper suggests that, “Formal criminal intervention would only have a place if an appreciable and measurable effect on the real-world victim could be established.”

Since so much is unknown or untested about this subject  as of yet, the paper suggest research directions for the future, which include “enhancing our understanding of the nature of harm within multi-user 3dve (three-dimensional virtual environments) platforms,” and more collaborative research on how to protect children in virtual worlds.

The report concludes:

Clearly, Australian 3dve users require more knowledge to identify, manage and prevent harm. Developing a systematic approach to harmonise current knowledge on these emerging issues is perhaps the greatest research priority.

Thanks Anthony!

As the window closes for public responses to the Australian government’s Discussion Paper on the subject of an R18+ rating category for games, where does each territory’s Attorney General stand on the issue?

GameSpot, which has been all over the subject, offers up just such a recount for us, noting that as of a year ago, two Attorney Generals were publically in favor of adding the rating category. That number has now dwindled to one, Australian Capital Territory AG Simon Corbell, who states:

The ACT Government supports the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games, similar to that of films and television. This position has been conveyed at meetings of commonwealth, state and territory ministers on a number of occasions.

Victorian AG Rob Hulls previously supported the measure, but has recanted, saying that he would not “pre-empt the consultation by announcing a position on this issue.”

Outside of South Australia AG Michael Atkinson, whose position on the matter is not exactly a secret, and Northern Territory AG Delia Lawrie, who declined to comment, the remaining AG’s buried their take on the matter in rhetoric:

New South Wales AG John Hatzistergos, through a spokesperson:

The position of Censorship Ministers on this issue should therefore be informed by views of the broader community. The consultation process now under way is an important step in achieving this.

Tasmanian AG Lara Giddings, through a spokesperson:

We are currently working through the discussion paper, weighing up the arguments for and against the classification, and intend to lodge a submission before the closing date of 28 February 2010.

Queensland AG Cameron Dick:

We are currently finalising our position in relation to the issues raised in the discussion paper.

Western Australian AG Christian Porter:

Ministers will make a decision on this matter after they have had time to consider the discussion paper and any submissions.

Again, submissions to the Discussion Paper are due by February 28.

Thanks Ryan!

The partnering of advocacy group Grow Up Australia and retailer EB Games has resulted in strong backing for the addition of an R18+ rating category for videogames in Australia.

GameSpot reports that the pair’s initiative has resulted in 16,055 signatures on their pro R18+ petition, which will now be sent to the Attorney General’s department. EB Games had called attention to the movement via in-store signage and with links and images on its website.

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, often identified as the lone holdout against adding an R18+ category for games among Australian Attorney Generals, has said repeatedly that the R18+ issue is one that only gamers care about.

Public responses to the Discussion Paper are due by February 28. Following the submission period, responses will be compiled into a report for Minister of Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor and other state and territory Attorney Generals.


Thanks Ryan and Magic!

Chalk up another win for Nintendo Down Under.

An Australian Federal Court has ordered RSJ IT Solutions, operators of the website GadgetGear, to stop selling R4 mod chips and to pay Nintendo $520,000 AU in damages reports Australia’s ITNews. The chips are meant to be used with Nintendo’s DS handheld and allow users to transfer files or games to the machine, bypassing protection built into the DS.

Two affiliated respondents, Patrick Li and James Li, were also charged in the original claim by Nintendo and were ordered to pay the Japanese game maker $100,000 AU. The pair was also ordered to file an affidavit in which they will name suppliers that they purchased R4 chips from.

This ruling follows Nintendo’s settlement with an Australian man earlier this month over a leaked copy of Super Mario Bros.Wii. As a result of the settlement, James Burt will reportedly pay Nintendo $1.5 million AU in addition to paying for Nintendo’s court fess in the case.


Thanks Ryan!

Australian Gamer has an interview up with an unnamed member of Australia’s Classification Board who provides some insight into both the rating and appeal processes.

The person queried would only identify himself as a Senior Classifier for the Board.

He/she was asked to provide a little more detail into how the Board actually reviews content:

I will clarify that we don't play through all games, I don't think we have the resources to do that. However the Act is set up in a way that allows the industry to provide an assessment under strict circumstances which is then provided to us. That involves a detailed report on the content of the game, in majority of cases we also receive gameplay footage and we always receive a copy of the game itself.

How does the Board measure or quantify violence?

It's a hard question to answer as it is a moving target. We operate in a method by which we call an impact test. This test is somewhat prescribed but on some level it comes back to the individual impact on the person playing that game. Putting that aside, I can give you the standard answer which is any violence that exceeds "Strong".

 

Overall in terms of the guidelines violence that exceeds a "Strong" rating is a scene that contains the use of greater detail that can include slow motion, close-ups, extenuation techniques (such as lighting, perspective and resolution), uses special effects in colour, tone, images and sound. A key factor in some of the controversial decisions you see is the use of prolonged violence.

On the appeal process and how appeals are not handled by the Board itself:

An appeal is actually an application of review to a different statutory body and they independently classify that game. The difference between us and them is that they effectively sit above us if you consider it a hierarchy. The appeal is to them and the things that they consider are the Classification Board's initial report as well as inviting submissions from interested parties. To my understanding it has usually been a representative of the applicants that comes in to argue the point of why the Classification Board's decision was wrong.

 

We are effectively different statutory bodies, we do not meet in any way and to be honest I have worked here 6 and half years and have never met a single member of the other statutory body.

Many more questions answered over at Australian Gamer.

An Australian youth worker is blaming videogames for what he claims is a growing problem of kids carrying knives.

Following the in-school stabbing death of a 12-year old boy at the hands of a 13-year old in Brisbane, Les Twentyman, an advocate for young homeless people, was asked to speak before a government inquiry into the matter.

According to ABC, Twentyman blamed games for desensitizing children to violence, in turn making them more likely to carry, and to eventually use, knives.

Twentyman continued:

Normally they'd have a fight and people might ring around them, and it would be one-on-one, and when one [child fell] to the ground it would be over.

But today that is not the case because of the amount of violent entertainment that these young people are absorbing. They lose sight of reality and become desensitized…

Twentyman sees knife-carrying children as a potential  epidemic, citing a young girl who told him that carrying a knife was as common as carrying a mobile phone.

While there were 19 reported knife incidents at Victoria schools in 2009, up from 11 in 2008, Education Minister Bronwyn Pike denied Twentyman’s claims of a growing cutlery problem, saying, “Yes, there was a slight increase, but these figures do go up and down a bit, but there hasn't really been an overall trend of increase.”

This story is eerily similar to one from 2008, in which a wave of UK stabbings was also attempted to be linked with violent media.


Thanks Ryan!

By way of a post on the Australian Conservative blog we are led to an Australian website that advocates against the addition of an R18+ videogame ratings category.

Blog author Andrew Hazelton is also the editor of the website in question: www.nor18games.com.au. The blog post notes that “…the last thing Australian needs is extremely violent and explicit games feeding into youth and adults minds.”

Once on the NoR18Games the website, the campaign against R18+ continues:

Although R18+ DVDs are already available, computer games involve the player in an interactive role where they become the character doing the killing, raping, beating or sexual activity.  An example of a currently banned game that would be allowed into Australia is a Japanese creation where the player is encouraged to gang rape and beat young women. Other games involve “first person” playing where the player takes the role of torturing or mutilating people.

The R18+ Discussion Paper provides views from both sides of the R18+ debate, to which NoR18Games adds, “once you start 'discussing' a topic you open up the way for the law to be changed!”

The NoR18Games website may also be affiliated with the Australian Christian Lobby, which has also come out against R18+. While great pains appear to have been taken to bury links with any organization, the “Find Out More” section of the site contains link redirectors that go through the ACL website.

NoR18Games urges its visitors to submit their own responses to the Discussion Paper against adding the rating category, offers a slew of propaganda to download and also features a petition that willing subjects can use to gather signatures.


Thanks Ryan!

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson is digging into his old bag of tricks, dredging up claims of personal threats, slamming gamers and insinuating that his political opposition might be behind the threats.

Speaking to ABC, Atkinson once again claimed to have had a threatening letter slipped under his door at 2AM “from a gamer” and said that his electronic email is constantly spammed.

Atkinson then went a step further, comparing gamers to another group:

I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me and are running a candidate against me. The outlaw motorcycle gangs haven’t been hanging around outside my door at 2AM, a gamer has.

Atkinson added, “I have no evidence to say that it [the threatening material] is being circulated by members of Gamers4Croydon. I don’t know who sends me this awful material.”

A short video segment from the interview is available here.

Atkinson has often been identified as the lone holdout among Australian Attorney Generals when it comes to the issue of adding an R18+ rating category for videogames.

Update: Gamers4Croydon President Chris Prior addressed Atkinson’s latest attack, saying, “It’s really quite absurd and it trivialises the lives that have been ruined by cruel motorcycle gangs.”

“We are a party formed to challenge Mr Atkinson publicly, civilly, and within the rules of South Australia's democracy,” he added, denying any link to the harassment of Atkinson.



Thanks Andrew, Ryan and iheartassassinmaids!

While it should be no surprise that Australian videogame retailers support the addition of an R18+ videogame rating category, as it would help to fill their coffers, some merchants have gone a step further and offered to display R18+ rated games in whatever fashion suits the government.

If an R18+ category was enacted for videogames, both GAME and Gametraders expressed to GameSpot their willingness to setup a separate section in stores for the adult-rated games. The pair also said that, if need be, they would follow the path of how R18+ movies are now merchandised in South Australia—housed in plain, generic covers.

Gametraders’ Marketing Director Chad Polley:

If it has to be done we will do it, but it would be our preference to place them in their appropriate platform section, up high, out of the view of minors. This is, of course, providing that the cover art is not deemed inappropriate for general public viewing.

A GAME spokesperson agreed, saying that although the plain wrappers would not be an “ideal solution,” they would acquiesce to any new legislation that the government enacted.

EBGames, who has shown their support of the addition of an R18+ rating category by plastering their stores with signage and inviting customers to sign a petition, was a little more reserved when it came to discussing how they would display adult titles if the time came, saying that the focus first should be on getting R18+ introduced before divulging any future plans.

Gametraders has since joined EBGames and also added a section to its website that urges people to voice their opinion to the government over the R18+ matter.

Thanks Ryan!

Australian TV news show A Current Affair recently covered the story of the man slapped with a $1.5 million dollar AU fine for pirating Super Mario Bros.Wii.

A reticent James Burt (pictured) himself appears in the piece, saying that the fine will have a “devastating affect” on his life. The 24-year old added, “It’s so easy to get carried away and take part in things you may not agree with.”

Burt admitted that what he did was “very stupid,” and something he would have to “work through for the rest of his life.” Interestingly, a broken street date may have helped contribute to Burt’s eventually piracy, as he stated that he found the game in a retail store over a week before it was to be officially released. Recounting to online friends that he already possessed the game led them to demand proof, which in turn led Burt to make the fateful decision to upload the game to the Internet.

The reporter engages a bit of hyperbole in the report, saying that the decision to upload the game by Burt led to “billions of gamers around the globe” receiving the game free of charge. Immediately following the reporter’s use of “billions,” a Nintendo spokesperson appears and pegs the number of downloads at around 50,000, which still equals a significant loss of revenue for the publisher.

The report uses a $1.6 million dollar figure as what Burt owes, which combines the $1.5 million dollar fine and $100,000 in court costs he must reimburse to Nintendo.

Burt had a few words of wisdom for others in the gaming community, saying “Don’t do what I did.”


Thanks Michael!

Responses to the Australian Discussion Paper—designed to foster public conversation on whether or not an R18+ rating category for games should be created—have been overwhelmingly in favor of adding the new category.

A Copyright and Classification Policy Branch member, as reported by GameSpot, claimed that as of February 1, 2010, 6,239 responses to the Discussion Paper had been received. While only 1,084 of those had been processed so far, just 11 responses out of the 1,084 were against adding an R18+ category.

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson has been vocal in his position that only gamers care about this specific issue, perhaps setting himself up for a win-win situation as he can now say he saw this coming and that all the pro-R18+ responses were from the gaming population.

Responses to the Discussion Paper are being accepted until February 28.

Adding the R18+ rating category would require a unanimous vote in favor of the action by all Australia’s Attorney Generals.

Conor O’Kane (pictured) is the developer of Ban This Game, which mocks the ongoing censorship in Australia, and in a recent interview with the Sydney Morning Herald he expressed some of his personal views on the state of gaming in Australia.

O’Kane is originally from Ireland, but has resided in Australia for eight years. In addition to creating his own games he teaches game development at RMIT University in Melbourne. O’Kane said he created Ban This Game to spread awareness of censorship in Australia and hoped that the humorous aspect of the game would make its players “more receptive to a serious message.”

O’Kane on the release of the Discussion Paper meant to stimulate conversation over the possibility of adding an R18+ videogame rating category in Australia:

…I'm not optimistic that it will lead to significant change. In order to introduce a change to the censorship legislation all Attorneys-General must be in agreement, and at present the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, is opposed to the change.
 

No amount of evidence or reason is going to change his mind, and so I believe the only solution to this problem is to remove him from office…

O’Kane was asked whether he thought Australian publishers and distributors were doing enough to campaign for change in the Classification system:

Until now I think campaigning has been largely pointless, as campaigning or media coverage is not going to change the mind of Mr Atkinson. However now that we have the Gamers4Croydon party running against Mr Atkinson, I think the Australian game developers and publishers should get behind this party and announce their support for them publicly.

O’Kane’s next game will be squarely aimed at a newly implemented law in homeland of Ireland, which states that anyone who “utters blasphemous matter” can be fined up to 100,000 Euros. He said, “If I can get fined for blasphemy for making the game then I think it will have been a success.”

O’Kane is not a stranger to activism; an older game of his called Harpooned, took on Japanese whaling “research.”

Thanks Ryan!