The public consultation on the introduction of an R18+ for computer games closes at the end of the month. Jessi Citizen, on behalf of EFA and in conjunction with Ausgamers, has prepared a draft response to the consultation that sets out our understanding of the issues and our arguments.

• Draft submission paper (MS Word format)

In the spirit of community involvement, and to ensure that we have the strongest argument we can possibly put forward, we are opening this draft paper for public comment. You can see (and edit) the paper on Google docs. Please provide us with your comments and suggestions on this paper. In addition to the draft document, we also have some research that we conducted (thanks to Julian Merlo and Matt Postle) that details comparative ratings for games in 2009 worldwide (showing that over half of the games that were rated as MA15+ here were given adult ratings by all five comparative jurisdictions overseas!)

To join in our discussion on the draft paper process, please join our discussion list. Putting these documents together takes money, and EFA is entirely volunteer funded. If you would like to contribute to our R18+ submission, please consider making a small donation to help us recoup our costs:

In addition to comments, we would like to see as many people as possible put together their own submission to the public consultation. You can do this either by using Grow Up Australia’s submission form or following the submission template and the instructions on the AGD’s website.

Here’s some tips for writing a submission:

• Be reasonable; don’t attack the classification board or any particular Attorneys-General. We have the facts and the theory on our side, and we don’t gain anything by sounding childish or petulant.
• Follow the submission guidelines – make sure your voice is heard.
• Make your points clearly and succinctly. Feel free to take any of the information we present in the discussion paper; you’re usually better served by being brief and to the point.
• Express the issue in your own words, and tell your own story; Explain to the AGD why you personally want an R18+ rating, and how it affects you.

The main points that we are trying to stress in this discussion paper are really quite simple:

• Gamers are adults; games, like films, tell expressive stories, not all of which are suitable for children. Banning everything that is not suitable for children amounts to unacceptable censorship of legitimate expression.
• Gamers are parents; as responsible parents, we take care to monitor what media our children consume, and can take responsibility for those decisions.
• An R18+ rating is about empowerment; the goal of Australia’s classification is to empower adults, protect children, protect people from accidental exposure to offensive material, and to take into account community concerns about particularly offensive content. An R18+ allows adults to choose what is suitable for themselves and for their children.
• An R18+ rating will be more likely to decrease rather than increase the exposure of children to inappropriate content, because it sends a clear message to parents that certain material is not appropriate for children; the lack of an R18+ for games, particularly when one exists for films, only causes confusion and lessens the ability of parents to take responsibility.
• Australia’s system is out of step with the rest of the world; games that are clearly not designed for children are being released with an MA15+ rating, and games that are suitable for adults are being banned. Our research shows that of the 47 games that were rated by the Australian Classification Board, the US ESRB, the UK BBFC, the EU PEGI, and the NZ OFLC, more than 50 per cent of titles that were rated MA15+ in Australia were given an adult rating overseas. The Australian system is demonstrably less effective in warning parents and gamers about the content of video games than our international counterparts. Introducing an R18+ rating will address some of this disparity and enable Australians to make more informed choices about what games they play or allow their children to play.

[edit: for more analysis, see EFA Chair Nic Suzor's blog post: iiNet did not ‘authorise’; providing internet access is not providing the ‘means’ of infringement’; safe harbours are effective.]

And with one tweet, iiNet CEO Michael Malone announces the result that we’ve all been waiting for:

IiNet did not authorize the infringements #iitrial

More analysis will follow when the full written judgment is handed down, but it is apparent that the Judge was convinced that iiNet has no control over bittorrent and is not responsible for the acitons of its users in the circumstances alleged by AFACT. From the preliminary information available, this sounds like a decision that is absolutely consistent with the theory of secondary copyright liability developed in the US case of Sony v Universal: the lack of control over the system means that iiNet has no legal responsibility over its users, despite knowledge that some users are obviously infringing copyright. In terms of the decision in Moorhouse, iiNet could not be seen as ‘approving, sanctioning, or countenancing’ the infringing acts of its users. This decision seems to fill the gap with the Kazaa and Cooper decisions in Australia, which both found that the intermediary in question facilitated and encouraged the infringements that occurred.

This provides important certainty for ISPs in Australia: “the mere provision of access to internet is not the means to infringement”. It also seems that more generally, this has important ramifications for innovation in Australia; in contrast with Kazaa, if you provide facilities that assist in infringement, but do not have control and do not act in bad faith, you will not be liable for secondary copyright infringement.

AFACT has been ordered to pay iiNet’s costs. Expect an appeal, but this first instance decision seems quite strong in favour of iiNet.

Stay tuned for further analysis.

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent changes to the South Australian Electoral Act 1985, and in particular the amendment to s 116 which extends the requirement of attribution to the internet.

The law seems poorly drafted and unworkable, but it may not pose as much of a threat as is suspected. See over the jump for my analysis.
Read more … »

Thank you to everyone who has signed the Senate Internet Censorship Petition.  So far we have just under 10,000 signatories to the e-petition, but that is just the beginning.

Please let your friends, family and colleagues know about the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy and what they can do to help defeat it, including signing the petition online as well as collecting paper signatures.

We now have badges you can use to help promote the petition.  If you would like to help publicise the petition, you can copy the code (next to each badge) and paste it onto your blog or website.  Or feel free to right click on the image, save it, and use it however you would like.

	<a href="http://www.efa.org.au/petition/"> <img src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/petition135.jpg" alt="EFAPetition" width="135" height="48" border="0"/></a>
	<a href="http://www.efa.org.au/petition/"> <img src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/petition180.jpg" alt="EFAPetition" width="180" height="63" border="0"/></a>

The negotiations for the ACTA, the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, are underway in Mexico this week, and there’s been a lot of coverage around the world of the lack of transparency in these talks. For those who are not familiar with the agreement, I want to recommend Michael Geist’s excellent five part ACTA Guide:

• The ACTA Guide, Part One: The Talks To-Date
• ACTA Guide, Part Two: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
• ACTA Guide, Part Three: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy

Parts four and five will be up later this week. So far, these posts do a great job of succinctly explaining the ACTA process, what we know of the content, and the concerns about the lack of transparency.

All this week Australian websites having been going black as part of the Great Australian Internet Blackout.  So far this online demonstration has successfully reached a wide range of audiences, educating them about the problems with the Government’s mandatory Internet filter policy:

• There are 480 verified participating websites (and that only counts the websites that have directly submitted their sites for inclusion on our list),  including the websites of the Australian Greens, the Australian Democrats, iiNet, New Matilda and Online Opinion.
• More than 2300 Twitter users have blacked out their profile pictures using a countable method (Twibbon), while many more have blacked out their profile using their own artwork (which is much harder to count).  You can black out your Twitter profile picture here.  You can also set your Twitter background to 1000 supporters of the Blackout here.
• More than 5200 Facebook users have joined the Great Australian Internet Blackout group (quite a number of whom have blacked out their profile pictures), up from around 2000 at the start of the week.  You can join that group here.
• There have been over 260,000 unique visitors to the Great Australian Internet Blackout website.
• The blackout information popup (which appears on sites that have joined the campaign using our script) has been seen more than 375,000 times.

It’s not too late for you and your business or organisation to participate in this demonstration.  Just visit the Great Australian Internet Blackout website for more information.

We will post the final numbers early next week.

Electronic Frontiers Australia today announced that over 500 web Australian sites will be “blacked out” on Australia day in protest against the Rudd government’s mandatory Internet filtering plan. Included among them are the Australian Greens, an Internet service provider, media outlets, and hundreds of other Australian businesses and organisations.

“This policy has caused considerable anxiety amongst Australian Internet users,” said EFA Vice-Chair Colin Jacobs. “The idea that the Government will be inserting itself in every Internet connection in the country is a tough one to swallow, especially without a workable policy goal behind it.”

The “Great Australian Internet Blackout” was the brainchild of activist Jeff Waugh, and is endorsed and supported by EFA. For a week starting on Australia Day, participating web sites will appear to turn black and will display a one-time message to visitors explaining the Government’s plan and offering them more information before allowing visitors to continue as normal.

The plan, which will see all Australian Internet connections subject to a Government-controlled blacklist of banned sites, will apply to all Australian Internet connections within 12 months of the legislation being passed. Although originally touted as a “cyber-safety” policy, the resulting filter will not filter out all material unsuitable for children, instead targeting a select list of “refused classification” material, which would includes content dealing with crime, drugs and certain types of adult material.

Greens Communications spokesman Senator Scott Ludlam, in deciding to support the campaign, said “The Government’s plan will not protect children, will do nothing to crack down on criminal activity online, and sets a dangerous precedent of centralised net censorship.”

Concerns with the list include its broad scope, it’s secret nature, and the inability of Australian businesses to know if and when they have been placed on the list. “One of our main concerns is how the list might expand in the future,” said Jacobs. “It’s hard to imagine this and all future governments responding to special interests, electoral pressure and the news cycle only with restraint forevermore.”

The Internet Blackout on Australia Day marks an escalation of opposition to the plan, which will continue throughout the year. “Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they’re in for,” said Peter Black, EFA’s campaign manager. “It’s important that such a major and expensive policy gets the public scrutiny it deserves.”

Read more … »

Ever since I became campaign manager for the EFA’s campaign against the Government’s mandatory Internet filter two and a half weeks ago, I have been overwhelmed by the level of enthusiasm and support for the EFA’s campaign.  Accordingly, the most frequent question I have been asked is “what can I do to help?”  Given this level of support and the desire of so many Australians to help defeat the Government’s policy, I thought I’d suggest ten things you can do to help the EFA’s campaign against the Government’s mandatory Internet filter.

1. Sign the Senate Internet Censorship Petition.

Last week the EFA launched a petition gainst the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy that will be presented to the Senate of the Parliament of Australia.  You can sign the petition electronically by going to this page and leaving your name, postcode and email address.

2. Collect signatures for the Senate Internet Censorship Petition.

In addition to signing the online petition, we are also looking for volunteers to collect printed signatures.  If you would like to gather signatures for the petition, please download and read the Senate Internet Censorship Petition – Instructions before printing the Senate Internet Censorship Petition.  Simply print out the petition and take it to work, parties, and anywhere else you might be able to talk to people about Internet censorship and persuade them to sign this petition.

3. Participate in the Great Australian Internet Blackout.

This week is the Great Australian internet Blackout, a week long online protest against imposed online censorship.  Over 500 groups and thousands of individuals are blacking out their websites and profile pictures to inform a wider audience about the Government’s plan.  Learn how to black out your website here, and learn how to black out you profile picture on Twitter or Facebook here.

4. Renew your membership or donate to the EFA.

The EFA relies on membership fees and donations to fund its activities.  Renew your membership or make a donation so that we can continue to fund our campaign against the Government’s mandatory Internet filter. Read more … »

The next round of negotiations on the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) are due to begin this week in Guadalajara, Mexico. On the agenda this week are civil copyright measures, border measures, internet enforcement measures, and, very briefly, the issue of the lack of transparency in the negotiations.

While much of the text is hidden from public view, the EU’s analysis of the negotiations was leaked late last year. The leak confirms that the ACTA is designed to impose the tough sanctions developed by the US for copyright infringement on other signatories. The main goal of the ACTA seems to be to bypass the WIPO system and entrench US-style copyright regulations around the world. In this sense, a multi-lateral agreement may be more effective than the series of bi-lateral agreements that we have seen in recent years because it has the opportunity to bind several countries at once to implement US-equivalent law.

By doing away with the open international process that WIPO conducts, the ACTA poses a real threat to the reasoned modification of intellectual property laws worldwide. By doing so in secret, it ensures that democratic processes are marginalised; the public will only get to see the text once it has been finalised, at a point when it is likely to be too late, politically, for states to withdraw support.

Read more … »

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday delivered an important, wide-ranging speech on the subject of Internet freedom. Coming on the heels of the Chinese cyber-attacks on Google and other U.S. companies, and the increasing use of online censorship by authoritarian governments around the world, the speech draws a line in the sand and presents the USA as the global champion of online openness.

Secretary Clinton Recognised that free access to information online is just as important in the modern age as the right to use a printing press was in earlier times. The ability to communicate with others over the net is as important, now, as the right to assemble and discuss politics ever was offline. Said Clinton, “The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate. Once you’re on the internet, you don’t need to be a tycoon or a rock star to have a huge impact on society.”
Read more … »

The Rudd Government’s mandatory ISP filtering bill will soon be introduced into Parliament, and we can only hope that the debate there will focus more on the real merits of the scheme – which are few and far between – than empty rhetoric about protecting children. When the debate happens, here are some questions the Government needs to answer under the glare of public scrutiny.

1. Given the trouble and expense of this policy, you must have some pretty convincing evidence that children are being constantly exposed to RC material. How was your research conducted and will it be released to the public?

(In fact, research indicates that of all the threats kids face online, accidental exposure to disturbing content is about the least significant.)

2. Two-thirds of Internet-connected households don’t have school-age children. Isn’t forcing a filter onto them as well as businesses unnecessary?

(We have never heard a cogent explanation why the filter should be mandatory and not opt-in, or why it’s a better solution than more comprehensive and customisable PC-based filters.)

3. Given the reasonably poor uptake of filters by parents in the past, what makes you so sure the Australian people want a filter at a national level?

(Survey data shows that parents who don’t install filters do so mainly because they consider them unnecessary or too restrictive, not for technical or cost reasons.) Read more … »

Electronic Frontiers Australia has today launched a petition against the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy that will be presented to the Senate of the Parliament of Australia.

You can sign the petition electronically by going to the this page and leaving your name, postcode and email address.  Please talk to your friends, family and colleagues about the problems with the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy and encourage them to sign the petition as well.

We are also looking for volunteers to collect printed signatures.  If you are having a meeting or protest against the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy in the coming weeks, we would encourage you to distribute this Senate Internet Censorship Petition to collect as many printed signatures as possible.  There are detailed instructions about collecting signatures, and where to return the printed signatures, here.

Learn more about this petition at http://www.efa.org.au/petition/.

If you have any questions, please email Peter Black: pete.black at efa.org.au.

Because mandatory Internet censorship is such a hot button issue in the technology community, the technology media has understandably provided their readers with something of a running commentary on the proposal for some two years.  This has been great for campaigners who oppose the issue as it allows us to have a voice in ways that we can’t achieve on our own, and to be fair, provides an outlet for the handful of supporters of censorship to engage in public discourse as well.

As EFA continues to work towards broadening the campaign against censorship, other folks with other opinions will continue to evolve their reactions.  One particular phenomenon I’ve noticed about the progression of ideas and the resulting writing, is the increase in people writing to draw attention to themselves or those they represent by writing material which has no real value but for how inflammatory it is.

Read more … »

Luke Lawrie from r18GamesAustralia.com is organising a consultation event this weekend in Sydney about the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games:

The Commonwealth Government has released a discussion paper which briefly summarises the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification for video games. Censorship Ministers have considered the issue of an adult classification for computer games on several occasions. However, they have not undertaken public consultation on this issue.

We will be hitting the streets of Sydney to try and make some sort of impact, our goal is to make the public aware of the outdated classification system by handing out information sheets about video games and the proposed classification changes. Also on the day we also want to see how many people we can get to fill out the submission template that the government has asked for.

Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010

Time: From 9:00am

Location: Outside Queen Victoria Building

Street: Corner George st & Druitt st

City: Sydney

If you would like to show support for this event please join the Facebook group, alternatively if you would like to help out in anyway possible please contact luke@r18gamesaustralia.com

I am very pleased to welcome Peter Black as our new campaign manager for the mandatory internet filtering campaign. We are all looking forward to working with Peter and are extremely excited to see his vision for the campaign.

The first step will be the unveiling of a new campaign website. If you would like to get involved in the campaign, if you can volunteer your time or provide any other assistance, please contact Peter directly at pete.black at efa.org.au.

We are stepping up the campaign on mandatory internet filtering, and we are looking for some help. Please see our December newsletter for more information on how you can help.

We are also looking to hire a community and campaign manager for a minimum three month contract to help us coordinate the campaign.