The Australian version of the Left 4 Dead 2 demo has been released, and the highly cut version is a bitter disappointment for many Australian gamers.

L4D2 screenshot by ravn0s shows disappearing zombies

First impressions from Australian gamers indicates that the highly-censored version results in a vastly inferior atmosphere to the original, uncut version.

The lack of an R18+ rating is likely to significantly harm Australian sales of the game, and we expect that many Australians will either not buy the game or will illicitly obtain an uncensored international version. Both adult Australian gamers and the software industry itself are made worse off by the lack of an R18+ rating.

Any benefits to minors of banning adult video games is questionable. Research into effects of violent games does not provide a clear and satisfying case for banning such games. At any rate, withholding titles from Australian adults is counter-productive - it is likely to result in more illicit copies, less respect for classification, and a diminished capacity for parents to monitor the games that their children are playing. Classification serves as a clear notice to allow Australian adults to make choices for themselves and for the children they are responsible for. A system that refuses to classify games that are widely available through illicit channels is unlikely to significantly reduce, and may in fact increase, exposure of children to age-inappropriate content.

An R18+ classification would require the unanimous support of all Attorneys-General, and in the past moves to change the current classification have been blocked on the vote of a single state Attorney-General. Progress has been made, and it appears that a discussion paper considering the introduction of an R18+ category is ready to be released. No sign of the discussion paper has been seen since the Hon Brendan O'Connor MP took over as the Commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs.

We encourage everyone interested in this issue to contact the Minister for Home Affairs and show your support for the release of the discussion paper. Australians deserve to have a say in this debate, and the release of this discussion paper is long overdue.

See our wiki page for the R18+ campaign for more details.

Asher Moses is reporting on the outrage caused by leaked footage of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which allows players to play the part of a terrorist as part of a cut-scene.

Once again, this story really shows how expressive video games can be. They're constructed, like films, to elicit emotional responses in players, and some of them deal with fairly gritty subject matter. Films often show the villain's perspective, and by doing that, they get across the character story and the heinous nature of people who carry out atrocities. Games, too, are becoming more expressive, and are telling more involved stories. From the reports I've seen of the CoD:MW2 footage, it seems to be trying to tell the story of a truly evil character, setting the scene for the player's main role of stopping the terrorists.

We do not ban films that tell such expressive stories, and we need to realise that computer games, like gamers, have grown up. Most interestingly, Infinity Ward appear to acknowledge that the game is aimed at an Adult audience - it's MA 15+ rating in Australia is lower than elsewhere. If we're concerned about allowing people to make informed decisions about what games they want to play, and empowering parents to make those decisions for their children, it really seems like it's time that we should introduce an R 18+ rating.

The EFA Board has released its annual report to members for the year 2008/09. The EFA AGM will be held on 16 November 2009.

Thank you all for all of your continued support throughout the year.

-- Nic Suzor, EFA Chair

Richard Giles has a few posts on his blog about a matter you may have heard about. Richard took some photographs at the Beijing Olympics and posted them on his Flickr account. Last week he was sent a rather forceful cease and desist letter from the IOC, which he also put up. The story was picked up by a number of influential sites, and people all over the world voiced their outrage at what they see as unfair restrictions on sharing personal photographs of the event.

Image by Tama Leaver, available under CC BY 2.0.)

This story makes a very interesting read. It raises significant issues about the ability of spectators to take and share photos of events, and the way in which contract law is used to override the explicit lack of protection in copyright law for spectacles. More interestingly, however, it reads as an educative guide on how not to enforce intellectual property rights. As Richard explains, the Media and Communications Director of the Australian Olympics Committee was not happy about the bad press that resulted after Richard publicly posted the letter he received. Richard's actions, however, seem reasonable - he was always calm and measured about his statements, and I see no reason that he is required to protect a rightsholder from potential criticism for the way in which they send legal threats. Interestingly, Richard shared a follow-up email from the IOC, in which the IOC explained their position in much greater detail and much more polite language.

The story ends in a way that's not quite satisfactory - Richard has had to change the licensing on his photos from a permissive non-commercial licence to 'all rights reserved', and the IOC and the AOC have weathered some substantial criticism for their actions.

The moral of the story, however, seems fairly clear: pick up the phone or send a personal email before sending a form cease and desist letter.

Read the story on Richard's blog: Part 1 and Part 2.

[ edit 01 Nov 2009: fixed a typo. ]

EFA will shortly make a submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2009 (Cth).

We previously made a submission to the Attorney-General's Department on the exposure draft of this Bill. We are happy to say that our concerns were addressed and that the new Bill appears to provide an appropriately limited exception for permissible interception of telecommunications for network security purposes. We commend the Attorney-General's Department on achieving a workable legislative exception to the prohibition on interception of telecommunications that allows network operators to perform legitimate network protection duties without unduly burdening the privacy of end users.

There are a few minor issues we would like to see clarified in the Bill - particularly relating to the obligation to destroy intercepted communications and the interception of audiovisual content.

You can view our submission here (500KB PDF). Other submissions will appear on the Committee's website in due course.