Any examples of mandatory content rating?

There are several swirling proposals for "rating" of Internet packets,
Usenet articles, Web pages, and perhaps other computer-communicated items.
There are also things like the "V-Chip," included as part of the
Telecommunications Act. (The V-Chip is ostensibly a "voluntary self-rating"
scheme, with an included mandate that government will give industry a year
or so to come up with a plan.)

I foresee major legal challenges to mandatory ratings of content. Issues
involving prior restrain, censorship, and the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

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.

To forestall a couple of likely examples some will cite, let me discuss a
few oft-cited cases:

1. Movie ratings. The familiar "G," "PG," "R," and "NC-17." (Used to have
"M" for "Mature," and "X" for, well, X-rated stuff.)

In actuality, these ratings are _not_ mandated by law, and are done by the
MPAA, the Motion Picture [something] Association. There may be serious
legal charges brought if, say, a 10-year-old child was let into a showing
of "Debbie Does Fort Meade," but this would be after the fact and would
presumably involve negligence charges of some sort (contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, child abuse, etc.).

(A parallel to this is ordinary speech to a child. While speech is not
required to be rated, there might well be various sanctions applied to an
adult who spoke to a child in various indecent or obscene or "patently
offensive" ways. I'm not saying whether I endorse this, and it would depend
on just what was said, but the point is that there is no "rating" system
for speech imposed, nor would the Constitution admit one.)

We may speculate that had the movie industry not adopted "voluntary
ratings" in the 1960s, government may have tried to impose ratings, but the
fact is that government did NOT impose content ratings. (The important
point being that we cannot look to how the movie situation evolved for
hints about how Internet packets or articles might be rated.)

Note also that the MPAA ratings are not "self-ratings," but are done by a
panel of MPAA representative. Many film directors have been very angry over
the MPAA ratings they received, and would not have rated their films as the
MPAA panel did.

There are then local ordinances about allowing children in to see "R" or
"NC-17"-rated movies, but this is a case where the government piggybacks on
the "private" ratings service (which could raise some important
constitutional issues if it was ever seriously challenged, which seems
unlikely).

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....

1A. A special case of this system is _television and radio broadcast_ of
indecent material, a la the FCC's regulations about content broadcast over
the airwaves at various times of the day. Cable is not regulated in the
same way, though most cable systems I have seen have "adult" material in
the evening hours (though definitely not confined to late evening). Lots of
wrinkles here, and the FCC is attempting some regulation of some
cable..."The Playboy Channel" is involved in a dispute where they are being
told they can only send their channel out after certain hours...details
should be accessible on the Web.

I think this special case of FCC involvement covers a different set of
issues than the "content" issue per se. Though this may help to explain
some of the rumors about the FCC seeking a broader mandate to regulate
"cyberspace," as this gives them a foot in the door to regulate content on
the same basis they regulate content of broadcasts.

Moving on....

2. Magazines, as in "For Adults Only!" emblazoned on the covers. In doing
my "research" for this article, I consulted my "reference materials," and
discovered that such warnings are less common than I remembered them as
being. Neither "Penthouse" nor "Playboy" issues that I have at hand contain
any such warnings, though some other mags do.

So far as I know, there is no government requirement for labelling. Again,
there may be sanctions imposed for, say, selling such a magazine to a
minor. I can't say as I've ever heard of a court case along these lines.

Importantly, there appears to be no "ratings board" run by the government
that rates such materials a priori. ("Obscenity" is not the same as
pornography or nudity, as we all must know by now.)

I conclude that magazines need not be labelled, voluntarily or otherwise,
though there may be sanctions if children are exposed to certain materials
(though this is unlikely). More to the point, it seems likely that the laws
which exclude children from entering bars and strip joints are the one
which would apply to keeping children out of "adult bookstores."

An important point was made recently by someone on the Cypherpunks list,
that some libraries make a point of providing access to _all_ materials, by
_all_ patrons, including back issues of "Penthouse." So far as I know, no
librarians have gone to jail for this.

Moving on...

3. "Explicit Lyrics" labels on CDs and music. This one is more iffy. I
recall the _proposals_ to require such labels, and Tipper Gore (wife of VP)
was a leader in this campaign some years back, but I don't believe any laws
were formally passed. I could be wrong. And some local jurisdictions may
have such laws; I recall some part of Florida mandated a labelling law, or
banned sales of explicit lyrics CDs in some way. (The "2 Live Crew" issue,
with "Me So Horny" and other gems.)

And none of the CDs I have seen here in California with "Explicit Lyrics"
or "Parental Advisory" notices mention who did the rating, whether the
lyrics are "Government Censor Approved," etc.

This tongue in cheek mention of "Government Censor Approved" is an
important point: any hint that a government censor is to apply ratings to
written or spoken or similar materials runs smack dab into the First
Amendment. This is not just an academic matter. There is no provision for a
"ratings board" to review content, and such a "prior restraint" (can't
publish something until it's been rated or approved) is a textbook case of
prior restraint, forbidden by the First Amendment. (The H-Bomb case
involving "The Progressive" was ultimately decided in favor of no prior
restraint, even for such a potentially serious situation.)

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.

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.

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

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, these ratings are generally 
mandatory if you wish to market things as aircraft parts/related.  They 
are implemented in much the way I envision mandatory Internet ratings 
being implemented.  (e.g., executive Agency created to define standards and 
execute ratings system as well as enforce infractions by the removal of 
whatever largess the FAA provides.  It might also be noticed that this 
is right in line with the conflict of interest trend in government of 
allowing the same entity define and enforce standards of 
conduct/manufacture/design).  It might further be noticed that the FAA 
rating for parts increases their cost several-fold over non rated parts, 
even if non-FAA rated parts are literally identical.

> 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.

Mandatory labelling or mandator rating?  I think this is an important 
distinction.  Most of the mandatory _ratings_ I can think of (FAA stuff 
included) are implemented in a round-a-bout way.  (i.e. "If you want to 
market this as X (bear a label) you must comply with Y, Z and U.")  I 
can't think of strict examples of mandatory "Labels" (i.e. "If you 
want to sell X, it must say Y, Z and U.") where a product simply must 
bear a quality rating symbol or something.  Voluntary systems are many.

The green "point" is a german example.  (Products wanting to market 
themselves as environmentally "safe" have to pass certain standards and 
then can bear the "green point" label.  This is still in the 'voluntary' 
labeling class in my view.  It might be noted, however, that if you are 
selling a food like product without the green point and you have even one 
compeditor who has it, you're not going to sell a single jar in germany).

The other German example is the Reinheitsgebot (Beer purity law, struck 
down as violating Article 30 of the ECC Treaty in Commission v. Germany, 
Case 178/84, [1987] ECR 1227).  Briefly, the word 'bier' could only be 
used on beverage products produced with only malted barley, hops, yeast 
and water.  Said the court (translated from the French)  "It must be added 
that such a system of mandatory consumer information must not entail 
negative assessment for beers not complying with the requirements of the 
Reinheitsgebot."

Laws on the mandatory use of the words "Sekt," "Weinbrand," "Branntwein 
aus Wein," and "Shaumwein" were struck down in Commission v. Germany, 
Case 12/74, [1975] ECR 181.  Taken as a whole, the German scheme could 
be viewed as a mandatory ratings system on type and quality of alcoholic 
beverages.  (The German argument for preservation of the Reinheitsgebot 
was that it prevented consumers from being taken in by producers who 
were using additives.  The Sekt, Wienbrand etc. laws were defended on 
similar grounds).  Granted all of these shy away from Mr. May's 
"intellectual property" qualification, but only insofar as we ignore 
the fact that what is really being regulated is a production process.

I suppose milk dates are "mandatory" and can be considered a "rating" in 
so far as they represent percieved quality/freshness.

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

> 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.

The real concern, if you believe as I do, that some form of internet 
rating standards are unavoidable, is allowing the same agency to make and 
enforce the standards.  IRS, SEC, FDA, FAA, FCC are all examples of where 
and how this can go wrong.  For a detailed discussion of the problems of 
government largess in the context of conflicts of interest, See Reich, The 
New Property; Reich, The New Property after 25 Years.  (Harvard Law 
Review, I forget the precise cite, but I will dig it up if anyone cares).

> --Tim May
> 
> Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
> We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

---
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

Klaus writes:
>I foresee major legal challenges to mandatory ratings of content. Issues
>involving prior restrain, censorship, and the First Amendment of the U.S.
>Constitution.

there is a big distinction to be made here. are posts required to
carry a rating system by which anyone can create ratings, or
are they required to carry some "official" rating from some
govt agency? for example, I think it would be odious if the government
mandated PICS for various providers, but I sure would like it a lot
more than them mandating a rating agency. that is, are they
mandating the *capability* to rate, or some "official" rating
system that involves judgement? 

>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. these ratings are
generally always going to be advisory-- people can latch onto them
for a fee if they like to determine quality. note that "good/bad"
is the most simplistic rating possible. even more superior rating
agencies might find "cool material". 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

On Sat, 13 Apr 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:


> And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective 
> judgement.  Not a very market stable or market wise system.  Tell me who 

	Since somebody else brought up SurfWatch, remember that 
	it was SurfWatch that declared whitehouse.org to be 
	off-limits for obscene content.  A mistake on their
	part --- or at least that is their claim.  << This
	was just before CDA passed, btw.   >> << I personally
	thought it was a great way to demonstrate the absurdity 
	of CDA.  >>

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



**********************************************************************
*								     *
*	Opinions expressed don't necessarily reflect my own views.   *
*								     *
*	There is no way that they can be construed to represent      *
*	any organization's views.				     *
*								     *
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/gr/graphology/home.html	     *
*								     *
***********************************************************************

On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Jonathon Blake wrote:

> 
> 	Since somebody else brought up SurfWatch, remember that 
> 	it was SurfWatch that declared whitehouse.org to be 
> 	off-limits for obscene content.  A mistake on their
> 	part --- or at least that is their claim.  << This
> 	was just before CDA passed, btw.   >> << I personally
> 	thought it was a great way to demonstrate the absurdity 
> 	of CDA.  >>
> 

Alas I suspect this will be used by the CDA supporters to claim that 
ballyhooed technology to 'protect' children does not work, and that legal 
restrictions are necessary...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Holovacs <holovacs@ios.com>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP Key fingerprint =  AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27  AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90

Unicorn takes time off from his busy schedule of smearing and ridiculing
me with sniping pot shots to write up a more comprehensive attack:

>> 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.  

you seem to not address the more liberal concept of "rating" that I 
am using, which does give me an opportunity to elaborate.
 in my view, anyone who exercises judgement is in fact
applying a process of "rating". the results of that rating
may be "explicit" in the form of things like measurements, (MPAA
ratings being discussed) or they may be implicit, such as the
selection of content for a magazine by an editor. however,
at the root these are the same activities-- taking a subjective
human judgement, and creating some objective "product" or 
"conclusion" from these judgements. 

ratings abound in our society. we have SAT tests for students.
every test is a kind of a "rating" by a "trusted rating
agency". we have the Better Business Bureau. we have credit
ratings. we have "referral services". all of these someday
are going to be seen for what they are: services that measure
the "quality" or "value" of various other services or 
information pieces. as we move into an information society,
people will begin to understand the commonalities between
all these seemingly diverse areas. they will tend to become
more unified and diverse at the same time.

most people are applying the concept of ratings far too narrowly
in my view, like you do above. I tried to expand your horizons,
but you lept into the trap of seeing ratings only of value to
parents. ratings in general are extremely valuable to everyone
who lives on the planet. imagine some of the following ratings 
services:

1. quality of internet providers around the country
2.  lists of people who spam internet mailboxes
3. best hi tech companies to work for based on packages

etc. ad infinitum

all of these have audiences, and would be economically viable to
maintain in my view. we will let the market decide. but when
the future of our economy is "information", you are going to
see some very radical new industries emerge. ratings
are one of them.

>And like any ratings system, it relies on the raters subjective 
>judgement.  Not a very market stable or market wise system. 

false. subjective judgement is relied on all the time by everyone.
it is not perfect, but because it is not perfect does not mean
it is worthless. you are relying on the subjective judgements
of zillions of people by living on the planet, who made subjective
decisions like: how do I best build a house? how do I build a 
computer? how do I plan this city? these are all subjective
situations.

 Tell me who 
>would pay extra for a movie that had a rating on it. 

completely incorrect concept.  people pay a lot of money for 
TV guide, for movie rating books, the advertisers pay Siskel
and Ebert (a rating service), etc. (btw, it was Klaus who 
first gave the Siskel and Ebert example, and because he is
so sensitive to being properly credited for his visionary ideas, well
I am crediting him <g>)

 No reason to 
>bother.  People don't like the movie, they can leave. 

oh brother. surely you see how weak your argument is. they paid
$7 to leave at the beginning? and you think there is no market
for a movie rating service? such services already exist.

 Instead they pay 
>for the newspaper that has the review of the movies subject matter.

right. a rating service. you will see more and more in the future
as information is recognized to have value in our economy.

>  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.
>
you have gone off on a strange tangent that was not in any way justified
by what I wrote, although you have a pretty good argument against *something*,
I'm not sure what <g> -- I didn't claim that MPAA ratings were the
best example of a rating service. in fact it is a very primitive
kind of rating system in my view.

>> 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.

false. they get paid by their advertisers to maintain that. just because
you don't pay doesn't mean that no money is involved. furthermore
there is a great example of an internet web site rating service called
"point communications top 5%"-- another economically viable venture.
these people do nothing but surf and rate sites, essentially, and
now they have a marketed book out on the subject. it's a rating service.

>  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.

that doesn't mean, as I repeat, that rating services will not increase
and thrive. there are many ways for an economy to run outside of direct
fees.

>> 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. 

no, frequently you will see editors write columns about what kind of
information they are excluding etc.  the whole concept of how much
space they dedicate to an article, the size of the headlines, the placement
of the articles, all are an "implicit" rating of the material. as I said,
some ratings are explicit, some are implicit. but the whole field
is going to become increasingly blurry in the future.

> 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. 

notice you seem to equate "ratings" with "central authority". PICS
is a good example of how this is a fallacious line of thinking. indeed
what I and Klaus have openly advocated is a distributed rating system
in which there are no "official rating agencies" other than those
that simply choose to be rating systems. you let the information
market decide.  PICS does support such a 
system, and is designed with that as a key design goal.

repeatedly in your message you try to extrapolate on the future
based on some very primitive and rudimentary systems in the present,
which I think is not going to give you a very realistic view. it
would be like the prediction made in popular mechanics, "computers
will some day become as small as a room".

your notes on copyright I don't really want to respond to, as I have
written essays here on my thoughts on the subject before that cover
it.

>There has been much talk lately about a move back to the centralized 
>computing model.

not by me. but note that the concepts of "centralized" vs. "distributed"
can become blurry in various situations, and I believe this blurring
will continue.

>Who is going to bother with centralized ratings when customized ratings 
>are a few keystrokes away.

nowhere in my article did I say that ratings would be centralized.
it is true they will be "centralized" in the sense that each agency
decides what ratings they have and how to store them etc.-- but
the agencies themselves are decentralized. their systems may in
fact also be decentralized (e.g. rely on many different reviewers).

  The basic premise that people will prefer to 
>have material selected for them rather than select it themselves is, in 
>my view, fatally flawed.

hmm, that's strange then that magazines and newspapers exist, or
mailing lists with moderators, etc.  maybe we don't  live on the
same planet or something.

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

imagine a rating service that rated the quality of companies. such a
company would be the consumer's complementary tool. the companies
rate their customers, and the customers rate their companies. indeed
a rating service designed for one audience (such as companies) is
going to be mostly worthless and perhaps even opposed by other
audiences (such as consumers). but once everyone has ratings that
they use, perhaps they will "live and let live".

>You are also ignoring the fact that if such an industry ever does 
>exist, there will be a free market of raters.  ...
> A centralized and 
>standardized ratings system is going to be an economic flop.

you seem to want to argue with me no matter what I say, so you read
all kinds of things into my essay I didn't write. I advise you to stick
to what I wrote if you are going to attribute things to me, although
your fiery passion against debunking the nonexistent is amusing and
I wouldn't want to squelch all future emanations of it.

a major point of the post I wrote was that ratings is a system that
involves a free market. nowhere did I argue for "a centralized and
standardized rating system" in the sense of one authority making
all the subjective decisions. what I *do* favor is a unified
*framework* wherein such decisions can be collected and traded
within, with PICS a very nice early attempt at this important
capability.


>> 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. 

no, I consider it a ratings system. the ratings are "implicit" vs.
"explicit". they are making subjective decisions about how to organize/
present the material etc similar to what an editor does, which again
I suggest is a "rater of information", although his judgements
are reflected implicitly, not explicitly, in his end product.

> It's also free.  So much a for massive 
>retail ratings industry.

again, I never said that individual consumers would pay for every
rating they consume. systems whereby advertisers effectively pay
for these ratings will be very useful as well. you seem to be 
"hot and bothered" by something I wrote, but I can't pinpoint exactly
what I said that got you so torqued up.

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

your idea that I am interested in a central authority as far
as "one unified rating agency" is totally incorrect and not 
supported by anything that I wrote in my post, and in fact I 
think outrightly contradicted by serveral statements in it.

again, what I do advocate is a unified technical standard by
which multiple rating agencies can all coexist. I am expressly
against coercion of consumers or retailers to follow particular rating
guides for any purposes. the entire system must be voluntary in
most aspects. 

however, an individual retailer should be free
to screen his merchandise or selection based on his own judgement,
which may or may not be based on ratings. if a large group
of retailers agree to ban various material based on their
voluntary decision to follow particular ratings, so be it.
the consumer is free to choose a different retailer that
better suits their needs. a consumer cannot demand a particular
kind of service however in my view if the retailer is not
interested in providing it.