From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:17:35 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Any examples of mandatory content rating?
Message-ID: <m0u8KCD-0008ycC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:59 AM 4/13/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> 
>> I'm interested in hearing about any _actual_ examples where a government
>> body in the United States has mandated that intellectual property (roughly,
>> written words, magazines, motion pictures, CDs, etc.) be "rated" or
>> "age-labelled." Before anyone out there fires up his "Reply" and tells us
>> about movie ratings, magazine warning labels, and the like, read on.
>
>Well, my examples aren't all going to be in the United States, or 
>strictly intellectual property, or 'age' based, but here:
>
>Age rated, I don't think there are many examples.  General ratings exist. 
>The best place to look for this kind of thing is e.g., FAA safety
>ratings on potential aircraft/aircraft part designs.
>
>While at first it may seem a bad example,

It is a poor example. Aircraft parts are not "intellectual property."  They 
are physical objects.  Their design may be "intellectual property", but they 
are not being rated BECAUSE of their intellectual property.  In fact, they 
would be rated for aircraft application even if nothing about their design 
or construction was patented, copyrighted, or was in any way restricted.


>> So, if anybody's still reading this, I am interested in _any_ examples
>> where intellectual content (as opposed to food or drug packaging, for
>> example) is required to be labelled.

>Still, governments are quite talented at making ratings schemes look 
>voluntary when practically speaking they are not.

You know, it's amazing how you fail to ask and answer obvious questions when 
they arise!  Why, exactly, should the government NEED to "make ratings 
schemes look voluntary when practically speaking they are not"?  After  all, 
you would love to take the position that the government has this authority 
anyway.  Is it possible you're just afraid to admit that the government(s) 
doesn't have this authority?  Is it possible to don't want to acknowledge 
that the government(s) try to force people do things it has no right to?


>> Such examples might shed some light on how these various proposals for
>> "labelling" of Net traffic might work. And absent such examples, might show
>> just what a tough road lies ahead for those advocating such labelling.
>
>I think it will end up much like motion pictures.  The net will be asked 
>to regulate itself under the threat of government regulation, which might 
>be an empty threat if the First Amendment rights are applied.  Most 
>people will comply, it being easier than making a fuss.

Sounds like wishful thinking on your part.  See, unlike movies and TV shows, 
which are produced by a relatively tiny number of companies which are easily 
targetable, Internet content will be produced by hundreds of thousands or 
even millions of sources.  Nobody will have to "make a fuss," they'll merely 
FAIL to rate their material.  No fuss, just no rating.

And there will be people out here who will excoriate anybody who complies 
with such a ratings system.  There will be essentially no pressure on the 
smallest organizations, because there will be far too many of them to 
target.  Besides, since there will be no enforceable standards they will not 
be targetable anyway.  Over time, ever larger organizations will refuse to 
rate, if they ever did.  Eventually, and probably immediately, the whole 
system would collapse.  At that point, there will be no government "threat" 
to regulate, because everybody will realize that the system is working just 
fine without regulation.  Everyone will see an unregulated Internet, and 
nobody will see a powerful need to regulate it.