From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 13:38:13 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: [Political Rant] Was: examples of mandatory content rating?
In-Reply-To: <199604132333.QAA22457@netcom11.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960413211541.9295G-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> >This MPAA situation is an important example because it is neither
> >"self-rating" nor "government" rating, but is, instead, something else.
> >This model would be extremely hard to apply to the Internet, as there is no
> >similar body to the MPAA, nor is there the same economic incentive for any
> >such body to form and then to try to cope with tens of thousands (at least)
> >of articles and pages per day....
> 
> totally disagree with you. the existence of Surfwatch etc. proves
> that there is *already* such a market and economic incentive. 
> SurfWatch is in fact, in a sense, a ratings agency similar to the MPAA--
> not a government body.
> 
> I foresee that the "industry" of providing ratings is going to be
> a very significant aspect of future cyberspace.

I tend to disagree.  Ratings are generally consumed by parents and 
otherwise custodial entities.  The largest and richest market anywhere 
has always been the 18-25 range, or 18-30 depending on who you talk to.  
I don't have figures, but I think that internet users probably 
prodominantely fall into 18-25/18-30.  This age group generally could 
care less.  It's much easier to search by subject or key word than by 
paying attention to ratings in any event.  There is no real market for 
ratings.  If there were a strong market incentive for it, there would be 
no need for government intervention, which there clearly is.  Sure some 
schools will purchase the services, maybe some parents, but this is a 
long leap from major market and industry making entities.

> these ratings are
> generally always going to be advisory-- people can latch onto them
> for a fee if they like to determine quality.

And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective 
judgement.  Not a very market stable or market wise system.  Tell me who 
would pay extra for a movie that had a rating on it.  No reason to 
bother.  People don't like the movie, they can leave.  Instead they pay 
for the newspaper that has the review of the movies subject matter.  No 
one much cares about the motion picture rating in any event.  Parents 
perhaps, and children, to the extent that 'R' and 'NC-17' films are 
mystified and thus interesting.  I can't even think of what the rating of 
the last film I saw was.  I simply don't care.

Does anyone honestly think that you're going to walk to a movie booth and 
drop $7.50 instead of $7.00 to get a look at the film's rating before you 
go in?  Put two box offices side by side with and without this policy and 
tell me where the line is going to form.

> note that "good/bad"
> is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating
> agencies might find "cool material".

Like the "hot sites" on Netscape's home page, or Alta Vistas?  Or the 
"site of the day" stuff?  Note that all this is free today.  Again, they 
all rely on the ratings judgement of the rater.  Given that most of these 
services are funded by advertizing sales rather than user cost, I think 
it's fairly clear that users wouldn't bother to pay for them.  They might 
pay in increased costs for products because of advertizing expenses, but 
actually paying someone is too much trouble.  I might add that Yahoo is 
about to go public despite the fact that it charges end users nothing.

> in fact in a sense, every
> editor of every newspaper is a sort of "rating server". he culls,
> filters, and selects information that the readers like.

That's a far cry from rating.  That's simple exclusion.  There is no 
discussion of the reasons and rationale for excluding, merely the 
exclusion.  This is the cypherpunks lite example.  Will there be a place 
for content/subject based news review, yes.  But it will be much more 
interactive than ratings made by a central authority.  It will, I hope, 
consist of software agents which allow each user to personalize his or 
her tastes (WOW!, that new compuserve deal is selling custom news 
selection I believe).  Given the option of that kind of control, who the 
hell wants a centralized rating system?  I can perhaps see that there may 
be serach fields which include ratings on content, much like there are 
search fields in library databases that permit you to find all the books 
over 200 pages on the planet, but that these of themselves are going to 
be significant I very much doubt.
 
> increasingly, we are going to see systems that place economic 
> incentive on *selection* more than *copyright*. in other words,
> in the old system, there is a "thing" called an "article" in
> which one pays money to the owner whenever you copy it. in the
> new system, the article itself has no value-- what you pay is
> the system that delivers it to you (all intermediaries, editors,
> etc), all the way up to the author.

I believe this wrong.  Neither copyright or selection are going to be 
viable businesses without advertizing.  I don't know where copyright is 
going to go precisely, aside perhaps from shareware (which is what it is 
now essentially, as the only people who pay for intellectual property are 
those who want to).  Particularly so in the context of audio, textual 
(Information Liberation Front) and software piracy markets.  Copyright 
will or will not eventually be saved by trade secret style withholding.  
Creators of intellectual property will just have to be paid larger up 
front purchase fees for release as royalities become impossible to 
collect.  There will certainly still be collections of articles, 
information, software which will be paid for by people who need it NOW, 
but those who are willing to wait will just be patient as the material 
filters down through the underground markets.  Creators will be paid by 
compliers, who will be paid by advertizers who are banking on the readers 
who purchase compilations (magizines, software packages, etc.) because 
they are looking for undefined new material in a known area and specific 
searching will not be effective in giving it to them.

Given that agents will be software as well, even these will be paid for 
only by those who bother to obey the law out of charity.

There has been much talk lately about a move back to the centralized 
computing model.  Put the software on the server and let users buy dumb 
terminals and share the software.  The personal computer market was made 
overnight because this is exactly the opposite of what people want.  
People want individual control.  People want to customize the software 
they run, and they want to have it at their disposal immediately, not by 
the graces of a provider.  This is literally carved in the philisophy of 
all the personal computer producers marketing tactics.  "Macintosh:  The 
power to be your best."  "Radius: How the best get better."  "Dayna: No 
bounderies, no limits."  "Word Perfect for Macintosh: The power to 
express yourself."  I think you can even show that those marketers who 
have failed to account for user customization have failed horridly and 
their products are the legends of failure.

Who is going to bother with centralized ratings when customized ratings 
are a few keystrokes away.  The basic premise that people will prefer to 
have material selected for them rather than select it themselves is, in 
my view, fatally flawed.

> it will take people awhile to realize, but ratings can actually
> be extremely liberating and useful if put into place in a 
> robust way. I believe PICS is a very good step in the right
> directions. what today is limited to credit ratings etc. will
> expand into a system of rating everything, I suspect, and 
> it will be done in such a way that everyone agrees it is
> a Good Thing and they couldn't imagine getting along without
> it.

You really think central authority rating a la TRW is a "good thing"?  I 
submit you've never had to deal with TRW.

You are also ignoring the fact that if such an industry ever does 
exist, there will be a free market of raters.  Those that don't end up 
fitting users wants will be discarded.  You can't please all of the 
people all of the time.  Custom agents can.  A centralized and 
standardized ratings system is going to be an economic flop.

> in the old system, censorship was accomplished by the government
> putting chains on, or burning, "atoms". in the future, people will just
> select whatever information they are interested in.

In the future?  They do that now.  What do you think Alta Vista is?
Alta Vista in its purest form, cataloging, is by no stretch of the 
imagination a ratings system.  It's also free.  So much a for massive 
retail ratings industry.

> censorship
> of bits is not only inappropriate, it is impossible. censorship
> can only work when you have atoms. those who are applying old
> "atom" ideas to "bits" will continue for some time to have sway
> with the public, until the general population realizes their
> arguments are completely specious.

Its interesting to me that you can be both so freedom of information 
oriented, and central authority obsessed at the same time.

I said interesting, not surprising.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com