Canadian Province Cracks Down on Game Retailers
Canadian Province Cracks Down on Game Retailers
November 18, 2008
As of next month, officials in the Canadian province of New Brunswick will require video game retailers to be licensed. The move is intended to keep violent games away from younger players.
As reported by local newspaper the Times and Transcript, the new regulation will make it easier for inspectors to ensure that the game shops are complying with ESRB ratings at point of sale. DVD sellers are already subject to licensing in the province. Lisa Harrity, a spokeswoman for New Brunswick Public Safety Department, commented:
We license and regulate the retailers only. Up until now, this did not include videogames... [The ESRB provides] a video game rating system that's used throughout North America. The issue is ensuring that our retailers are complying.
GP: This system would be unworkable in the United States. Here, court decisions have held that it is unconstitutional to base government enforcement actions on a private standard such as the ESRB ratings.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:51pm
DarkSaber: I think he just goes round the internet copy+pasting the same bollocks to get attention.
DarkSaber: I think he just goes round the internet copy+pasting the same bollocks to get attention.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:41pm
Valdearg: @DS: I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the 4 Feb 2010 on that post.. >.<
Valdearg: @DS: I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the 4 Feb 2010 on that post.. >.<
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:31pm
DarkSaber: Hm, Bioshock. Not that Zippy likes to beat the dead horse by ranting about it for TWO $&%£ING YEARS!
DarkSaber: Hm, Bioshock. Not that Zippy likes to beat the dead horse by ranting about it for TWO $&%£ING YEARS!
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:30pm
DarkSaber: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173063-Bioshock-yet-another-zippy-rant
DarkSaber: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173063-Bioshock-yet-another-zippy-rant
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
really sucks though, as it would be a good fix for our system, damn you canada and your good ideas! XD
It's only a good idea if there's really a problem, and I don't think there is. It's the parents' job to keep the kid from getting into anything he shouldn't be; if the parent is too incompetent to watch what his child plays, he shouldn't be a parent. Set up some parental controls and call it good. You could stop him from playing M-rated games or watching R-rated movies all in one step. Then even if the kid does get ahold of something he shouldn't, he still can't play/watch it in your house.
It isn't that good of an idea still... Forcing parents to take blame for their actions and not actually parenting their kids would be a good idea. God forbid we blame the parents for their failures though. It isn't like when companies make mistakes that they just go out of business... Oh wait, if you are big enough and pay off enough government officals you do get bailed out, thats right. Still, the majority of the companies get screwed.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls
Forbidden fruit is the sweetest of all.
By creating all this unnecessary work, the government is creating a taboo that young people will want to break. They will see it as unreasonable. If not that, then they will see it as an "adult" thing that they will want. With strict controls, the allure grows. Think about it, why wa sit such a big deal for young boys to get their hands on a bosom rag? It's the allure.
~ Actus non facit reun nisi mens sit rea. ~
At first I thought this might turn nasty, however, now parents can't ocem crying to the government if they buy GTA for little billy.
You want to know why we get to have reasonable laws? We didn't flip off the King and then kill masses of their people. We aksed politely to govern ourselves. AND IT WORKED!
Hey! The King stuck it to use first! Him and his damned whoppers, constantly knocking on our bedrooms windows and trying to reverse pickpocket us...
@Moriarty70
TAKE THAT!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Game on, brothers and sisters." -Leet Gamer Jargon
And you put this in a post about an unreasonable law?
Kindly show what problem this solves.
Well, it's a comment on the fact that we don't have a concept as black and white as the first amendment. We have freedom of the press, freedom of speach, but within reason. Also consider that most provinces in Canada have adapted ESRB as a legal standard and there are also laws about minors in R rated movies, maybe goverment legally backing accepted forms of ratings isn't such a bad thing.
Plus I don't see this as unreasonable, just NB's version of Ontario's amendment to the Theater's Act.
Honestly, I'd rather something like the first Amendment be "black and white." I don't want any grey room for the government to wiggle its way into. Hell, with the FCC, "hate speech" laws, etc, they've already made a grey area that shouldn't exist in the first place. Natural Rights shouldn't be open to negotiation, which is why I always cringe when one of my neighbors to the north say something like "within reason" when it comes to the rights they have.
In the end, it comes down to being free, or having the illusion of freedom.
Oh, and saying that you were willing to take it up the ass for an additional hundred years or so isn't something to be entirely proud of. If England hadn't had a weakening worldwide position it never would have given your country up. As it stood, Canada just wasn't profitable enough at the time to justify keeping it.
I love it when United Stater's see us as weak and apathetic, too cowardly to do anything. Might have something to do with you guys being taught that the war of 1812 was a draw against the British. Right and you burned down your own White House at the time as well.
Moriarty. I'm not wanting a big argument or anything like that. I just have one question about how yousay your laws on freedon of speech and such are.
"Within Reason"....Who decides whats "Within Reason"?
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system, since the government has to decide. In fact there was a huge fight about that leading up to the election recently since the party in power decided it got to control what used to be open funding for the arts. For me within reason has resulted in us not taking extreme stances on topics and never backing down (i.e. drug laws).
Also, we tend not to turn things into a media circus, espically court cases. The first amendment allows the US to have cameras in the court room and broadcast the results live from within. Up here we don't, and I apologize for saying it this way, celebritize our criminals, we try not to have trial by media up here as much as it seems in the States. To me, that's what I meant by wihtin reason.
Yes, they burnt down the White House. That doesn't proclaim victory for them, as the capital had already been moved elsewhere by that time. In the end, they had to retreat. No territory was lost or gained. Every push by the british was pushed back. In the end, they held part of Maine, and we held parts of canada around...wisconsin, I think. In the end, though, it worked out to our advantage as the British strength in the Americas was weakened, and our ports were no longer getting screwed over by the British. So basically, the money and strength gained from the war more than pays for the white house.
Also, I never said that you were weak or apathetic. I just said that you don't mind getting raped by a larger government, or at least didn't at the time. Laying down and taking it like loyal citizens of the empire isn't something to be overly jubalent about. Granted, Canada became more autonomus as time went on, but while we were sitting pretty at our bicentenial (technically not, seeing how the states didn't form until 10 years or so after 1776, but whatever), you still weren't independent from the UK.
When it comes to freedom of speech black and white is good. I'm happy that you trust your government enough to decide what is "within reason". Please note that here we have assholes such as Bush and Yee. I really don't want people like that deciding what is "within reason".
-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-
So it's basically the UK system then.
Cool.
It's only based on the ESRB ratings. The government has full authority to change any ratings it doesn't agree with. It's essentially "yes, we have a government ratings system, it just *happens* to look and feel exactly like the ESRB system. ;)
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Says who? I've never seen anything about the Canadian Government having a rating system outside of film.
Each province has their own system, there's no central federal ratings board, even for movies. Some provinces just follow another province's lead (for example, Saskatchewan uses Alberta's ratings system).
Most provinces have ammended their "Entertainment Act"s to adopt ESRB ratings for games so they don't have to go through the rigamarole of establishing a ratings board for video games. But they put in a clause stating that the Minister of Culture or equivalent has the authority to override any ESRB ratings the government doesn't agree with.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Canada rerated Manhunt and Soldier of Fortune to Restricted to 18+ based on their violence.
The original Soldier of Fortune was rated as a adult (porno) movie in BC but was later on overturned. Manhunt was given a Restricted rating in Ontario before the Ontario Film Review Board started using the ESRB rating system.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Some provinces did. There's no country-wide ratings board, even for movies.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
While i'm personally against any and all restrictions and regulations on Free Speech media, unfortunatly there is no such thing as Free Speech in Canada. I'm a Canadian and love my country but i wish we had American style Freedom of Speech rights as well as less nanny-state bullshit. No restrictions and regulations on Free Speech media and leave it up to the parents to keep their children away from movies/video games/ect. that they find inappropriate or unsuitable for them.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Uh, dude? Charter of Rights & Freedoms? I much prefer our guarantee of freedom within the boundaries of prescription of law to the American system of "let's let everything fly and work out its culpability after the fact."
Besides which, who educates the parents if they haven't got a basis for judging the games in the first place? Somebody has to take on the task of ensuring that everyone has an awareness of what may or may not be appropriate for different age groups and households, and if a legislated system is part of how we do that, then I say go for it. As Maxpower mentions below me, this doesn't change anything for the majority-age players who are buying M-rated games for themselves.
---
The Mammon Industry
While i consider myself pretty damn close to a Free Speech absolutist. Unless the speech in question is so connected with illigal activity or harm such as child pornography and real rape videos, yelling fire in a crowded theater, making death threats, lying under oath, ect. the nanny-state should stay the hell out of it. The Free Expression of ideas and information should not be be restricted or censored by the state solely because they are considered offensive or to be innappropriate. But that just my view, we'll have to agree to disagree.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
I don't think we have to, I'm pretty sure we're in complete agreement here. Harmful expression shouldn't be allowed, such as the exposure of violent or sexual media to young children whose development prohibits their understanding of it. Where that line of understanding is crossed depends from child to child, but adding an ID check to the process gives an extra safeguarding moment for the parent to reconsider whether the game is appropriate or not.
But yeah, we agree in principle, just not necessarily in application.
---
The Mammon Industry
If you are refering to YOUNG children like those still in their single digit age brackets or slightly above then yes, i would definetly agree. The majority of 8, 9, 10 or 11 year old kids should not be playing games like Manhunt or GTA.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Harmful expression shouldn't be allowed, such as the exposure of violent or sexual media to young children whose development prohibits their understanding of it.
Where has this been conclusively shown to be harmful?
Long time stalker first time poster (It's one of the only gaming esq websites that isn't blocked at work)
I live in NB and at first I was a bit taken back by this new legislation.....however after realizing that I can head down to my local retailer and pick up the unrated version of Hostil or Saw....this won't change too much for me. All this will mean is that I'll have to show my ID at more places than just bars and liquor stores now.
P.S. Dennis, I've been coming to the site for years now, love it. Keep up the good work.
"It could have been, should have been worse than you would ever know"
I don't particularly like this, because it seems like the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. At the same time, I agree with the notion that a store should check for ID and only sell Marture rated games to those of the appropriate age. It's my belief that this should be voluntary, and entirely up to the retailer. The government has no ratonale to step in and make it offical and legal, because there's no hard evidence that there is a problem.
It's just reactionary bullshit.
I wouldn't say it's reactionary bullshit....they have done it with retailers who sell DVD's for years now. I went in a few years ago to pick up the first season of DBZ and had to show my ID, I was surprised that it was age restricted but oh well. Nobody has said that violent media here is a problem. All it's doing is including another form of entertainment underneath a law already in place.
"It could have been, should have been worse than you would ever know"
"I agree with the notion that a store should check for ID and only sell Marture rated games to those of the appropriate age. It's my belief that this should be voluntary, and entirely up to the retailer."
Voluntary systems are good for stores that don't volunteer, and get to sell the games to the people who can't buy them from the stores that do. If the goal is to make the rating system actually useful, voluntary enforcement by retailers is doomed to failure.
The NB government has the perfect rationale to step in and make it official and legal, because they do exactly the same thing with movie rentals and the movie rating system. It's consistent.
Remember that we're talking about Canada here. US laws and values don't apply.
Umm...you're arguing against the numbers here. It's completely voluntary in the US, and we have a very damn good numbers to show.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080508-ftc-report-retailers-clamp...
While I don't agree with what NB and other provinces are doing, I can at least find no fault in the fact that they're being consistent.
I live in NB.
This really doesn't mean a lot. They're not banning games. In fact its legal to sell AO games, even though the console makers won't let anybody make them (MS, Sony, and Nintendo are the real censors in this story).
All this means is that the ratings are actually enforcable against retailers. Its really not that big a deal, since the movie rating system is already enforced in the same way.
This is a problem; not so much because they are keeping mature content from kiddies (yay and whatnot), but ESRB is hardly a science. They rate what the game developer gives them, and are a third party organization (i.e. not administered by the Government). For this to work we need to standardize the rating process and rate the game from top to bottom. To bring up tender topic, Hot Coffee got past ESRB (even though it was not playable without violating the ToS of the product).
Where do we draw the line between rateable and unrateable content?
But when the content was brought to the ESRB's attention, they changed the rating retroactively. A voluntary system only works as long as everybody adheres to it; if there was a real problem with massive discrepancy between the ratings and the content, it would be all over the place. (When's the last time you played a T-rated game and thought to yourself, "gee, this should really be an M?")
---
The Mammon Industry
Well, whats the point of having a rating system period if hidden content could potentially shift the game a whole rating level? Once again, re: Hot Coffee, most games with sexual content (yeah yeah, pixelated whatevers, these reviewers see boobie shapes and flip out) is an automatic AO. GTA at M vs. AO is a big shift. Enough to discredit the system as a whole.
I don't think that follows. The fact that they were able to go back and say, "okay, we got screwed up on this one, we're going to correct it now" proves that the system is credible. If they'd refused to go back and fix it on the grounds that the released version had already been reviewed, then there'd be a problem.
---
The Mammon Industry
As an extreme comparison, let us say a hospital reused IV needles so that they used 1 IV needle for every 10 patients. There was a sudden rash of communicable disease (Hep C, AIDS, etc.) amongst those individuals, causing the hospital to now use 1 IV per person, reviewing and adjusting their policy. Now, everything is fine and dandy, 1 IV per patient keeps all future patients safe; but what about those that came before? Can you trust that the hospital is not doing something equally as questionable in other areas? Maybe they aren't sterilizing every single bed pan, but ever other bed pan, etc.
Failure to get it right the first time casts doubt on EVERYTHING that has come before and will come after.
That only holds true if a heightened level of scrutiny doesn't already exist. The gaming industry has that to a great degree, given the amount of hacking and community-based exploration that goes on. That's why any time somebody figures out how to take the blurring effects away from kills in the PAL version of Manhunt or naked people in The Sims, it immediately hits the airwaves (or the blog-tubes) and reaches the public. Yes, the doubt is reasonable, but it's mitigated by the stability of the track record.
We're not talking about a life-or-death mass affliction here. Note that the class action suit against GTA:SA only generated 2,600 plaintiffs, most of whom were probably more interested in getting some free cash than truly traumatized by the inaccessible contents.
---
The Mammon Industry
I have played M games that should of been rated T. :P
Correct if I'm wrong but Ontario has been doing this for years. I remember not being able to buy The Punisher at an EB because the clerk said the store would get a fine. At Rogers Video I couldn't rent an R-rated movie without ID, either.
The ratings have been legally enforceable for years. It's just the actual enforcement that's been lacking. There's always been that threat of fines, but until recently there hasn't been much interest from police in ticketing businesses. Better things to do and all that.
Most of the rental places and most national chains up here have been pretty good about it. It depends on the region too.
Here in Saskatchewan while places like EB Games and Blockbuster/Rogers card, Walmart/London Drugs/Zellers/HMV never do.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Its Saskatchewan, how much more screwed up can the kids get. (I'm from Alberta, for the record)
I'll stay out of the provincal turf wars. ;)
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Can we all just agree that everybody hates Toronto?
---
The Mammon Industry
Does anyone else think that many of the lesser end M rated games would probably be given a 14A rating if we used our own rating's boards system rather then the ultra-harsh ESRB? I mean games like Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, Far Cry 2, and the Longest Journey would definetly be 14A if they were films.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
Oh, and Mass Effect also.
"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment
That'd be great it things actually worked that way. Wasn't there something about how if a game gets a bad enough rating (like M or worse), it can actually prevent the game from even coming out because some systems won't carry it? Wasn't that thing that almost prevented Manhunt 2 from coming out? Someone's going to have to correct or fill in the blanks cause I'm not sure about this...