[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Any examples of mandatory content rating?
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,
>[email protected] 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:[email protected]
"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: [email protected]