One of the hot topics here in Los Angeles is the MPAA Ratings Board, as seen through the lens of documentary filmmakers Kirby Dick and Eddie Schmidt. Their new film, "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated," shows how costly and illusive family-friendly ratings can be to achieve for independent filmmakers. If you want both sides of the story, extraordinarily well-done, listen to the two most recent episodes of National Public Radio's "The Business" (January 23, 2006 / January 30, 2006). The new documentary tries to make a case that the power of the ratings board exerts a sort of de facto censorship on what content audiences can see. The argument goes something like this: the MPAA controls what ratings are assigned to films; producers and directors contract with the studios to deliver a certain rating in exchange for having their film distributed; films that don't get "PG-13" or "R" ratings don't get made by the big studios; therefore, the MPAA controls what movies the studios make.

To make it more complicated, Dick and Schmidt argue, quite effectively, that the MPAA discriminates when it comes to depictions of sexual situations: screen depictions of same-sex behavior garner a higher-level of parental protection than substantially similar opposite sex depictions. Is that fair? Or is the difference in the ratings just an accurate measure of how 'the average American parent,' the standard by which the MPAA is guided, would judge the behaviour? Content labeling by a third-party is not easy, consistent or necessarily predictive of how you would label something.

From my vantage point, however, I'm not persuaded by the "This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated" argument. First, the opportunities for creating and distributing content, without friction or restriction, have never been greater. This blog entry is proof of that. Equally important is the ability of filmmakers to release their film without any rating at all. The MPAA service is voluntary. As a practical matter, the big budget commercial films we see in theaters all have a rating from the MPAA, but I'm still skeptical. The MPAA requirement comes from the investors, who simply want to ensure that they release a film that can reach wide audiences, i.e. a favorable ROI. Their money, their decision. And, second, if the MPAA ratings seem very red-state oriented in their view of what 'the average American parent' might think, then compete with them. I have no doubt that a more progressive ratings board might get some traction with filmmakers and cinema owners in the blue-states.

If I have any gripe with the MPAA, it's that the ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) are too blunt a ratings instrument. I'd rather see the categories of content, such as violence, sex, language and adult themes, rated separately on a scale of 1-10. That would allow me to make better choices about what to allow my children to watch.

Which brings me to .XXX, the bluntest of ratings instruments. Check the web and you'll find lots of people discussing their belief that a new TLD for pornography inevitably will lead to censorship. I have a hard time equating "labeling" with "censorship" even when the effect of the label is that many people will decline to distribute, show or see something. The problem will come if .XXX is made mandatory by the governments of the world and the guidelines for what "must" go in the TLD are unpredictable, discriminatory or impossible to enforce. From a legislative perspective, I think the better view is to make .XXX a "safe harbor": so long as you register in .XXX and serve your content only from a host addressed by that domain, we won't prosecute you for obscenity.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I'll bet Louis wishes his memory could be scrubbed as easily as his resume.
IANA Report on the Redelegation of the .TK Top-Level Domain: "At present the domain is delegated to Vixie NZ Ltd (caretaker) with Paul Vixie as the administrative contact. ...Paul Vixie, the current caretaker, agrees to the redelegation."
The Times Online (via Slashdot) reports on rumors that "Google is working on a project to create its own global internet protocol (IP) network, a private alternative to the internet controlled by the search giant...." I find the line between creepy and cool is getting more and more fuzzy.
Chris Ambler thinks he owns the Internet. I'll bet he'd settle for just a piece of it.
Finally, here's a quick warning to the men who read my weblog. Gentlemen, this is a trap. Do not fall for it. Those little pink hearts are not real -- they were added in Photoshop. You bring one of these home for Valentine's Day, and you're sleeping on the couch. Trust me on this one.

Coming Tomorrow: "IPR71: What Can We Do About Those Troublesome New gTLDs?"