Nightshadow (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} illusionbreaker) wrote,@ 2009-06-25 21:30:00 |
|
Well, put your hands up if you didn't see this one coming...
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/game
I've got a ruler to clip your fingers with. Really, who DIDN'T see this one coming?
It's probably a good thing that due to the controversy regarding the juristiction of Section 7 of the Act, if a game is RC'd by the AMCA, there's enough grounds to argue that as a game title.
(Remember, the Act itself says that the Classification Board has juristiction over all video games and it's really broad. No one's actually taken the definition to court, short of Blizzard being sued by the NSW AG for penalities and watching that play out in court. At the moment, Blizzard argue that as a digital download, they're covered by the broadcasting acts, not the Classification board, and hence the AMCA.)
And since they're USING the classification board's ratings (Anything over MA15+ would be RC'd and they're saying any game outside that would be blocked under the filter to comply to law), it's safe to say that an agent of the Classifications board can put in an appeal as necessary. It would not be fair if they were NOT allowed to get a reassessment, because they have to have redress particularly if they feel the decision was made in error.
Remember the training I went through in Feburary?
Yeah, that one, the Authorised Assessor Training? The one that gave me authorisation from the director of the board to submit reports to be considered by the board?
They legally can't stop me, as an agent of... well, actually, I could represent anyone I feel like, since I could be appealing on behalf of the content creator or a third party, to access the disputed material and make a recommended assessment to the board.
To do that, I'd have to be legally allowed to see it, right?
If they block my access to view or obtain such material, they would be blocking my requirements to carry out my mandate.
Now they could try anyway, but THAT would prove to be an interesting case to play out..
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/game
I've got a ruler to clip your fingers with. Really, who DIDN'T see this one coming?
It's probably a good thing that due to the controversy regarding the juristiction of Section 7 of the Act, if a game is RC'd by the AMCA, there's enough grounds to argue that as a game title.
(Remember, the Act itself says that the Classification Board has juristiction over all video games and it's really broad. No one's actually taken the definition to court, short of Blizzard being sued by the NSW AG for penalities and watching that play out in court. At the moment, Blizzard argue that as a digital download, they're covered by the broadcasting acts, not the Classification board, and hence the AMCA.)
And since they're USING the classification board's ratings (Anything over MA15+ would be RC'd and they're saying any game outside that would be blocked under the filter to comply to law), it's safe to say that an agent of the Classifications board can put in an appeal as necessary. It would not be fair if they were NOT allowed to get a reassessment, because they have to have redress particularly if they feel the decision was made in error.
Remember the training I went through in Feburary?
Yeah, that one, the Authorised Assessor Training? The one that gave me authorisation from the director of the board to submit reports to be considered by the board?
They legally can't stop me, as an agent of... well, actually, I could represent anyone I feel like, since I could be appealing on behalf of the content creator or a third party, to access the disputed material and make a recommended assessment to the board.
To do that, I'd have to be legally allowed to see it, right?
If they block my access to view or obtain such material, they would be blocking my requirements to carry out my mandate.
Now they could try anyway, but THAT would prove to be an interesting case to play out..
