Australia to enforce a "ratings system" on web, track users (was Re: [LINK] Has anyone seen this...)

[Irene Graham]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:24:35 +0100, Kim Holburn wrote:

> <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071223-australia-to-enforce-
> a- ratings-system-on-web-track-users.html> Apple Mail corrected
> version: <http://tinyurl.com/2ghtja>

Most of the media reporting on this matter I've seen to date is somewhat 
misinformed as to the facts.

[...]
>> Beginning January 20, anyone who publishes commercial content online
>> or for mobile phones in Australia will be required to make sure that
>> adult-oriented content isn't seen by minors. This isn't just porn
>> we're talking about, either: the new rules essentially port
>> Australia's movie ratings over to online content.

That situation, in relation to R18+ Net content, began on 1 January 2000. 
It applied then, and still will, to all R18+ content, not just "commercial" 
content. Anyone remember the Broadcasting Services (Online Services) 
Amendment Act 1999 ?  Well, since then, access to content hosted in 
Australia, that is or would be classified R18+, has been subject to 
provision of proof of being aged 18 or older. See:
[ Restricted Access Systems Declaration 1999 (No.1)
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/BA
D5DDE72A5F50CDCA2572E300026931/$file/RestrictedAccessSystemsDeclaration1999
No1.pdf ]

These so called "new rules" don't make any difference in relation to R18+. 
Has there been any R18+ content hosted on sites in Australia since 2000? I 
doubt it. Also, back then, hosting of X18+ in Australia was effectively 
banned.

The new rules extend the situation:

- to "live content" hosted in Australia, e.g. streaming video, to which the 
1999/2000 Act did not apply (a political reaction to the Big Brother TV 
program controversy some 18 months or so ago); and

- to some, not all, *commercial* MA15+ content hosted in Australia. 
"Commercial" means a "content service (other than a news service or a 
current affairs service) that is operated for profit or as part of a 
profit-making enterprise". However, the rules do not apply to all 
commercial MA15+ content, they apply when:

"20 (1) (c)  all of the following conditions are satisfied:
  (i)  the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board 
[or if not classified there is "a substantial likelihood" that the content 
would be classified MA15+];
  (ii)  access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system;
  (iii)  the content does not consist of text and/or one or more still
visual images;
  (iv)  access to the content is provided by means of a content service
(other than a news service or a current affairs service) that is operated
for profit or as part of a profit-making enterprise;
  (v)  the content service is provided on payment of a fee (whether
periodical or otherwise);
  (vi)  the content service is not an ancillary subscription television
content service;"
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/clasa2007544/sch7.html

Hence content that is or would be MA15+ does not have to be subject to a
RAS unless the content service is operated for profit, and/or a fee is paid
to access same; and/or the content includes moving images (not just text
and/or one or more still images), etc.

Also, this 2007 amendment to the BS Act, like the 1999 one, does not apply 
to end-users of the Internet. It applies to hosting service providers. It's 
also complaints based, same as previously, which means that when the ACMA 
receives a complaint if they reckon the complained about content should be 
subject to a restricted access system they can issue the hosting provider 
with a "take-down" notice - large fines for non-compliance. 

The new rules also extend previous rules about mobile phone etc content to 
the types of content referred to above, but I'm not going into the detail 
of that, too complicated. The relevant legislation, which gives ACMA the 
power to make new rules in accord with the legislation, is here:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/clasa2007544/sch7.html

Obviously this latest political initiative will be no more effective in 
protecting children than the 1999/2000 one - all it will achieve is more 
content will be moved to off-shore hosts, same as happened with R18 and X18 
content in around 1999/2000.

Irene