New Film and Publications Board draft policy
This might be quite important to all of us.
Read here:
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-11-27-spectre-of-an-online-content-censor-looms
TLDR: The draft policy, which the Mail & Guardian has seen, requires that, as of March 31 2016, no one will be allowed to distribute digital content in South Africa unless it is classified in terms of the board’s guidelines, or a system accredited by the board, and aligned to its classification guidelines, and the Film and Publications Act and its classifications. The FPB logo must also be prominently displayed.
Now this supposedly applies only to distributors (Steam I guess?) so I'm not sure how it would affect us.
*activates the Nicksignal*
Read here:
http://mg.co.za/article/2014-11-27-spectre-of-an-online-content-censor-looms
TLDR: The draft policy, which the Mail & Guardian has seen, requires that, as of March 31 2016, no one will be allowed to distribute digital content in South Africa unless it is classified in terms of the board’s guidelines, or a system accredited by the board, and aligned to its classification guidelines, and the Film and Publications Act and its classifications. The FPB logo must also be prominently displayed.
Now this supposedly applies only to distributors (Steam I guess?) so I'm not sure how it would affect us.
*activates the Nicksignal*
Comments
More worryingly though is that "distribution" could be equal to "putting a demo on a web page", and that requires a distributor license. That shuts down individual public sharing to a scary degree.
As for trying to pass everything through the FPB? No. I'd sooner stop distributing in SA.
I fixed OP:
Andrew Ryan had some messed-up ideologies, but the question stands: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
I would rather not sell —or have— my company's games, and my personal projects, in my own country than having to deal with this.
The question I have is how will this affect something like itch.io ?
If someone more knowledgeable than myself would explain that would be super.
Well as devs we can actually ignore this pretty easily: we just don't see in SA since FBP only governs the distribution of content in SA and not its creation.<div><br></div><div>With digital platforms Steam et al, I'm not too concerned since the wording seems like it would be possible to use PEGI or ESRB ratings, I can VERY likely be wrong here but my interpretation of what I read seems to lean to this.</div><div><br></div><div>Where this completely starts to wig me out is that it can basically reach any content on the internet: any arbitrary YouTube video, twitch stream, deviant art wadeva, a podcast, or pictures I posted to twitter. Again my interpretation of what I've read.</div><div><br></div><div>Now the next logical step is: right you can't police the internet, and that's true. But as long as they're generating a profit I'm pretty sure they are going to try. And I'm really fucking sure that this is just a profit generating thing: we're talking about the FPB here.</div>
@Gazza_N So government is split into three "spheres"; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Legislature (Which is parliament, the people we vote in come election times) makes the law, the Executive (The presidency, the various departments (DTI, Arts and Culture etc) implement the law through the police force and "policy" and the Judiciary (judges) enforce the law (Through the courts by presiding over court cases).
The Executive can only do what it is empowered to do by legislation (law). So for example in the Films and Publications Board Act it gives the Minister of Communications the power to create policy to implement the law (So the FPB Act says children shouldn't be exposed to r18 content, the minister has the job of writing up the way this will be achieved). Unless the relevant Act says the policy has to go through public participation process, it doesn't (in the case of the FPB Act it doesn't).
The misleading title does not convey the most accurate story here. The bill has been approved for submission. This is still a way off from being signed into law. As much as sensationalism would have you believe this is the start of some totalitarian administration over the information you hold so dear on the internet, I do think there is still room for this bill to be tweaked to better represent the intent. Not to censor but to try and steer inappropriate content away from the incorrect demographics.
Lets hold out a tiny bit of optimism here that this won't be the black curtain raised around us that people might want you to believe.
Can someone point out some positive aspects of this bill ? Cause it just seems like a crap idea in the first place.
What makes you feel optimistic and what can individuals do to grow their own optimism?
If you wish to be active support the efforts of people like @Lexaquillia, support the various other voices opposed to the ambiguity in the bill. Perhaps look for support from opposition parties with enough clout to make a public appeal. Write an angry worded letter. Post an angry tweet
Edit: Perhaps I should explain my stand a bit better before I have to fend off pitchforks myself. I'm not asking people to be optimistic about the bill specifically, just to not give into the media hype. It won't help anyone to spin their wheels against sensationalist journalism.
There are many well meaning laws that sound terrifying at first glance. I can understand the intent here, I can understand they would like the content easier to restrict for unintended demographics. I can also see the gaps open for abuse. Every single thing you come across in life has negatives and positives.
I am aware that humans suffer from emotional biases, and that during times of negativity they tend to focus on the negative aspects of something. Maybe hold out and see what the actual implications are before rushing to assume that this is the end of free content distribution and consumption as we know it. The internet has far surpassed our ability to morally judge its content and perhaps this bill is a little behind the curve, but just because it can be damaging doesn't mean it will be. Daily I operate a device that has the power to murder countless people instantly, I just choose to drive it where intended and not dismember persons in my path.
As for the argument that content restriction should be the task of the guardian of a child, in the case of child appropriate content. Consider that there are homes, by the thousands, where children have no access to internet. Not because of a lack of infrastructure but because parents forbid it, "There might be porn on them there computernets. ". A child without access to the greatest repository of knowledge known to man, a child without access to a tool that might make them less ignorant than the generation before, because of an uneducated bias. Imagine for a second the parents, with some kind of trust in a system to make choices for them can rely on a higher power to regulate content flow. They feel safe, they feel secure. One more child in the world has access to education they would otherwise not have.
A shallow example I grant you, but a positive one nonetheless. A little spark of light in a sea of biased negativity over a possible totalitarian future that may never be.
I'm basing my read not on one cycle of media "hype", but on everything I've read about this bill so far AND the advice of @LexAquillia over the last few months. If it were a great bill that we should all be optimistic about, then @LexAquillia wouldn't be trying to change it... Granted, the change process requires a faith in governmental processes that some might call optimistic, after all @LexAquillia has been working hard to win concessions from the FPB before. I think further optimism is perhaps encouraged by understanding the process that this bill is going to go through, which requires education, not just calls for hope: The majority if us here don't know what the hell is going to happen to this bill or what's expected or even what the next step in its life is. We're just seeing generally incomprehensible stupidity seemingly relentlessly marching forward towards being law.
P.S. As for the example of controlling parents, the real saving grace for children in situations like that is more that they're not going to be under the sway of parents like that for their entire lives - not that said parents will suddenly have changes of heart. It's not like the FPB has demonstrated amazing abilities to regulate content in the past, nor are dogmatic parents likely to listen to reason in the first place...
I get that, but isn't the reason the internet is so awesome because it is so open ? Like I can publish something right now about my life, my struggles, my knowledge about a certain thing or just about anything else with the click of a button. What the fpb is trying to do is going to make it more difficult for me to do that. Which might dissuade me from even posting whatever I wanted to post. Which in return makes the internet less of a awesome thing.
Also if people start visiting only FBP approved sites (this is a big if) they have the ability to shut me down if they are displeased with my content. There will probably be strict guidelines in place that will prevent this but all it takes is a policy change. If for instance they decide people should not visit sites talking about how the earth is actually a octagon with 6 moons and an invisible sun and I have games/"film" about that, then I am fucked.
I just don't believe they should have the ability to take down or block content in the first place. Its the entire reason I think the internet is so cool.