Think about it this way.

I buy a blue car paint it red and sell it, then the person who buys it strips the red paint of making it a blue car again. Can that purchaser of the car then complain that I sold them a blue car instead of the advertised red?

Maybe instead of trying to get the game developer is trouble, take action against these hackers.

I wonder if by the time I'm a parent I will be able to do any parenting of my children or just have to pay for their food, clothing etc and let the government tell me what to do with them.

Sims and Sims 2 had anti-blur patches for toilet and shower scenes so you could see the Sims in their full non-genitalia glory. Surely this means that Sims should be resubmitted as Mature or 18?

Gees, get over your selves. A patch such as this is additional and not released by a company so why should the company take the rap for it?

.. what a joke. I can think of two things wrong with the title "Family Protection Groups". Who they're serving certainly isn't families, and what they're doing certainly isn't protecting.

They have this antiquated notion that the government and law is the best (and most important) tool via which to produce a desired result. Apparently they missed such watershed bits of factual information as the failure of the U.S's "War on Drugs" and the persistence of music piracy, not to mention how woefully ineffective the policy of prohibition was, back in the day. Look at abortion, also. In spite of its legality, abortion rates have been falling for at least the past decade. 

History has proven how foolish it is to use the government and laws to thwart and change human behavior. So, too, is it with video games. Parents should be deciding for themselves what their kids can and cannot play. I'd wager the parents are a more effective censor and, beyond that, it's the only place where censorship authority truly belongs.

So if someone else hacks your game and runs it how it's not intended, it can get a higher rating?

Thats like if someone steals your wallet, you have to pay the police for it.

The Inquirer has a history of producing articles that imply how hard-done-by the manufacturer of violent videogames are (take note of "Fortunately for Take-Two, the hack does not roll back all the changes that enabled the game to qualify for the "Mature" rating", etc.). That is ridiculous. Obviously, if you're going to create a violent videogame, you should be ready to shoulder the responsibilities of creating and disseminating such a game. It's not as though the videogame makers went ahead with the production whilst blindfolded. Give me a break here.