[IP] more on ex-ex-ex and ICANN

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: June 3, 2005 12:50:00 AM EDT
To: Anthony Watson <Anthony.Watson@dollarsandsense.com>
Cc: lauren@vortex.com, dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on ex-ex-ex and ICANN




> Well said, I now understand the more extended consequences of this...
>      However, I think it is likely a done deal.

Quite possibly, however it's always useful to provide ammunition
for the court battles to come!




> Also, would not much of your argument apply to movie ratings
> too.  Obviously, getting an X rating or even an R can be a death  
> sentence
> for a picture.  By extension, your argument would seem to  
> invalidate movie
> ratings...Yes/No?

The analogy is interesting but breaks down pretty quickly.  MPAA
ratings are (in theory) voluntary, but in practice have been
essentially mandatory since until relatively recently effective
non-theatrical means of distribution were limited.  So producers
would essentially "bargain" with the MPAA over what to cut in many
cases.  The result of course is that ratings tended to distort the
actual product as producers attempted to create a cut that would
meet particular rating standards (frequently amounting to violence
is OK, sex isn't...)  Interestingly, it has recently become clear
that unrated versions of films in some cases actually outsell the
rated ones, where the former are available (see
http://www.eepi.org/archives/eepi-discuss/msg00066.html )

The different in the exexex case is that, by definition, we're
talking about what are likely to be ultimately mandated restrictions
on the totality of the means of distribution and access (including
non-anonmyous ID access requirements) for particular content (that
is, access to Web sites themselves).  There are no "alternative"
means of distribution for Web sites that have been "branded" as
being, for example, "unsuitable for children" (based on the
definitions in current political vogue at any given time).

So in that context what we're talking about is taking the very worst
aspects of the movie rating system, making them much more powerful,
inescapable, and arbitrary, and extending their reach to a vast
number of commercial and non-commercial Web sites and individual Web
site operators (and to potential Web site viewers who presumably have
traditionally had their own rights to anonymous access in most
cases).

I'm not a lawyer, but the litigation prospects are breathtaking,
as are the freedom of speech implications.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@eepi.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, EEPI
  - Electronic Entertainment Policy Initiative - http://www.eepi.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com






-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/