I'd actually argue that the failings are down to the existing legal system rather than the BBFC, which has generally been pretty sensible and pragmatic since the post-2000 rethink of its overall policy. A fundamental problem is that the Video Recordings Act is even more out of date than the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act and needs wholesale reform (or preferably abolition).akaten wrote:I certainly wasn't suggesting an absent of any rating system, rather its give and take, and something that is needed both due to the failings of BBFC, viewer habits and the rise of new technology and online means of watching films that make it more difficult to implement.
Ironically, the VRA was created in the first place as a response to technological innovation running ahead of legislation (i.e. video recordings not being subject to any kind of censorship), but it's since been superseded by even more innovation, particularly in the increased globalisation of distribution. Which is why many of its provisions are essentially redundant.
But it would first have to lobby the government, as the VRA acts as a barrier to any fundamental change in how the BBFC vets films - the games industry is much more flexible here because it's not tied down by statutory requirements in the same way. It also seems to me that the mainstream industry (if not independents like MoC) is generally pretty happy with the present arrangement, since the BBFC is much better equipped as a flak-catcher in case of trouble. And in my experience, distributors tend to be much more conservative with problematic material, cutting out minutes even if only seconds or frames pose any legal problems.The articles suggest the industry will adopt greater role in determining the nature of content rating in exchange for greater powers for the Video Standards Council than the BBFC could ever have hoped to use in the existing system (revoking a publisher license) to ensure compliance and prevent the illegal selling of games to minors.
What's being proposed seems broadly in line with the current system in British cinemas, whereas you can show films without prior BBFC vetting, but with extra hassle (notably getting local authority approval for screenings to go ahead). I've long argued that the system for video releases should be broadly similar - voluntary, but with penalties for non-compliance (albeit penalties that indies like MoC probably won't care about, such as restricted releases in mainstream outlets).This is what the film industry could do with, a means to rate that is more in line with how films are produced and crucially marketed (the benefits of which are addressed in an interview with Microsoft's Neil Thompson at the site above) and with safety measures to protect all from abuses that could harm the industry.
Well, this takes advantage of a VRA exemption that can't be extended to fiction works without a change in the law. But I'm not sure what you mean by "broad public opinion", because the BBFC has long operated a policy whereby it's more lenient (or, if you like, nuanced) to independent films that are unlikely to gain a wide audience - former BBFC head John Trevelyan admitted this way back in 1970 when he conceded that he wouldn't have passed W.R. Mysteries of the Organism for general release, and was very annoyed with its distributor for giving it a wider release than he'd expected! They've had a longstanding tradition of using smaller releases that are less likely to get noticed by the broader public to experiment with pushing the boat out - though now that they pass virtually anything that isn't actually illegal, it's less and less relevant.One benefit would be to do away with the BBFC idea of rating according to "broad public opinion," when broad public often has no interest in the films in question, in the same way documentaries are often not rated in the same way as cinema, with a more nuanced system taking into account the nature of the content and its likely audience.
