6. The classification framework should not impede competition and innovation, and not disadvantage Australian media content and service providers in international markets

Published on 12 August 2011. Last modified on 2 September 2011.

The ALRC is interested in the extent to which the regulatory burden on industry can be minimised while giving effect to the other principles of reform outlined here.

A significant risk in reforming the National Classification Scheme is that regulations might be applied more strongly to domestic content providers simply because it is more do-able, while the regulatory complexities arising from media globalisation and convergence are not adequately addressed.

We are also interested in the question of how to ensure that the burden of regulation is not disproportionately applied to local content producers and distributors in increasingly globalised media markets.

Comments (5)

Free TV agrees with this

Submitted by Free TV Australia on 1 September 2011.

Free TV agrees with this principle, though suggests amendment to reflect that particular platforms within the Australian market should not be disadvantaged by the classification framework. At present additional costs are borne by Australian service providers as a result of duplication of some classification functions.

Suggested new Principle 6: The classification framework should not impede competition and innovation, and not disadvantage Australian media content and service providers in international or Australian domestic markets.

Content publishers in our

Submitted by Mark Newton on 23 August 2011.
Content publishers in our competitive media environment can already escape impediment caused by the Classification System by moving offshore. In most cases Australian companies don't have to move offshore per se, they can just move their distribution arm. So instead of paying an Australian web hosting company to distribute their products, they can pay an American web hosting company instead, placing them outside the reach of the Classification Board and the jurisdiction of ACMA. (note that this acts as a hidden and seldomly-voiced impediment on the Australian web hosting industry, which has been felt ever since the passing of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999, which forced any Australian enterprise wishing to publish R18+ or higher material to prop-up other countries' hosting industries instead of Australia's. Next time you see a politician insisting that the online pornography industry is worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year, remember that literally none of that money is coming into Australia) South Australian publishers are the exception: Thanks to SA's unique censorship laws, it's illegal for a South Australian to make material higher than MA15+ available online even if it's through an offshore hosting operation (never tested in court, but that's the clear intent of the law), so South Australian companies actually need to leave the State (or the country) to publish with impunity. Overseas publishers never need to deal with any of this jurisdictional idiocy, of course: They can sell downloaded media product to Australians without knowing or caring anything about Australia's classification law, and without ever needing to grease the palm of the Classification Board with an application fee. Some computer game publishers routinely carry out business this way now, since the Australian computer game classification system is already byzantine enough to create a commercial imperative to bypass it. The clear consequence of the system in its present form is to favour international content distributors by financially and legally penalising local producers, without making the slightest bit of difference to actual content availability within Australia's borders. The way out is pretty simple: make classification optional, and recast it as a consumer information service rather than an apparatus of social control. Once the whole "compulsorily paying the government lots of money to ban things" concept is off the table, Australian producers can compete with (unbannable) foreign producers on something approximating a level playing field. - mark

If we adopted a

Submitted by Brownbear on 18 August 2011.
If we adopted a classification scheme where regulation was separate and performed by the producer of the material it is likely that two things would occur 1) The general public would use the scheme with more confidence in making purchases and would shun items that didn't carry a classification 2) Overseas producers would voluntarily join the scheme to increase their sales potential, I believe that in the USA film classification is voluntary and there has been some interesting results in the interaction between producers theater owners and the general public. Regulations need to be as loose as possible and consistent with the Criminal Codes. Two examples of this. It is legal for two 16 year olds to have sexual intercourse with each other yet if the girl takes a photo of herself topless and sends it to the partners mobile phone they can both be charged for using a carriage service to distribute/access child pornography and they will be categorised as sex offenders. If they are both 19 but the girl looks like she is 17 then they can still be charged. If a person downloads a legal pornographic video from the USA, which requires age verification of its actors, the person can still be charged in Australia if one of the participants appears to be under 18. This has caused the producers of adult internet content to move overseas. Pornography is supposedly a big market on the internet so Australia is currently regulating businesses out of a share of that market. I would suggest that ideally the only regulation should be contained in the Criminal Code and not in the Classification Code.

Agree absolutely. However the

Submitted by JT on 12 August 2011.
Agree absolutely. However the current legislation is already doing it, and it can only get worse if the government gets its way.

You cannot apply a mandatory

Submitted by Cameron1 on 12 August 2011.
You cannot apply a mandatory system to Australian companies and not expect them to be burdened by it. It's a ridiculous suggestion to make that a company in a foreign market isn't at a competitive advantage by not having to jump through censorship hoops. The only way for Australia to remain competitive is to dump the archaic system.