GAMES LAW: An Australian Perspective

by Nathan Cochrane

Att: Stuart O'Connor 
     West Australian Newspapers

Dear Mr. O'Connor

Follows is a letter I faxed to the WA Attorney General, Mrs Cheryl Edwardes today. I am infuriated by the high-handed, ill-informed approach that our legislators have chosen to adopt in this matter, and hope by this missive to register my continuing disapproval of their actions with regard to this matter in particular and their stance on civil liberties in general.

kind regards,

Nathan Cochrane


Wednesday 11 May 1994

Attorney General W.A.
Mrs Cheryl Edwardes
77 St. George's Tce
Perth 6000

Re: Decision to classify electronic games

Dear Attorney General

Anyone with even a passing interest in electronic gaming would be aware of the moves mooted in recent months by state and federal governments to pass restrictions and classifications on the entire range of electronic gaming software currently on sale in Australia and yet to come.

With over ten years experience within the gaming industry, having worked in all areas from retail to wholesale, programming to writing for numerous magazines on the topic, I feel that this path of draconian legislation is doomed to be an ignominious failure. It strikes me as being exceedingly naive and irresponsible for any democratically elected administration to pass any legislation without first fully understanding the nature of the beast they seek to slay.

To this day I am unaware of any reports by qualified professionals in the relevant social and technological fields having presented their opinions to the relevant governing bodies. For that matter, where has the consultation with the users of these legal products been? On what grounds can anyone point to innocuous electronic games as being a significant contributing factor to moral delinquency in our young? This is the same breed of reasoning that ex Vice-President of the United States Dan Quayle used when he referred to the Murphy Brown character as responsible for the continuing decline in moral standards in that country. The overwhelming international response to this non-sequitur was 'Get real, Murphy Brown is fiction. She is just a character on TV, she is not real!'

However, beyond the moral objections to such an outrageous imposition as banning or classification, there are financial ones as well. In recent years the status of computer games has risen quite significantly, to the point where the two largest companies in Japan (and hence the world) are not banks or car manufacturers, they are the console gaming companies, Sega and Nintendo. Beyond this, however, there are thousands of small, backyard operators who rely on the shareware marketing principle in order to bring their games to market. While the large corporations would have no problems paying the thousands of dollars required for classification, these small shareware businesses would be forced out of the market, and the export dollars they generate this country lost. Such a waste of valuable human resources could have significant consequences in years to come when Australia attempts to modernise and join the ranks of the globe's first world IT nations.

Another great stumbling block to classification is the non-linear nature of computer games. A book or a movie is laid bare as everything that happens within it can easily be observed and noted. A computer game may possess dozens or even thousands of locations that 99% of players may never see. How is it possible for any government agency, staffed by technophobes, to adequately deal with a technology and genre that they cannot comprehend? It would be like asking a professor of English to pass judgement on a Hindustani text - plainly impossible.

The speciousness of the arguments behind classification and banning of electronic gaming software is laid bare in the ways that programmers can so easily bypass any restriction via the use of 'hidden' codes. I refer specifically in this instance to the codes in the home versions of Mortal Kombat fondly referred to by the gaming community as the 'blood n gore' codes.

The entire issue of banning and classification goes beyond the superficial objections that those intent on making a name for themselves may care to point out. Throughout history it has been proven empirically that banning a product does nothing whatsoever to prohibit its use, and does in all known cases actually make the good being banned more desirable, and usually more available.

I would urge your government to look long and hard at the ramifications of any action taken to yet further restrict personal freedoms more than they have already. You would earn the undying gratitude of the many tens of thousands of dedicated gamers throughout this great state if you were to turn your backs on the specious and poorly informed rantings of the wowser minority and stand firm in your stated commitments to personal freedoms and civil liberties.

Faithfully

Nathan Cochrane (MEAA-AJA) Electronic Gaming Journalist

cc. all electronic media
relevant internet conferences