Film like ratings for websites?

Film ratings needed for websites: British minister

Britain's culture minister says that websites should be rated in the same way that films are, to protect children from offensive material.

Andy Burnham says his government has plans to discuss the idea of international rules for English-language websites with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama.

"We have got a real opportunity to make common cause [and] this is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Burnham told Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper in an article published Saturday.

The minister, who called the internet a "dangerous place," said age-appropriate ratings may be the way to go.

He would also like to see internet-service providers (ISPs) offer parents "child-safe" web services where the only websites accessible are those stamped suitable for children.


Burnham also suggested the internet follow television's example, which often doesn't broadcast violent or sexually charged material prior to 9 p.m. There should also be a set time in which sites such as YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content, he said.

Burnham has denied that he's attacking free speech.

"The internet has been empowering and democratizing in many ways but we haven't yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around," Burnham said.

"There is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

I really don't see how Mr. Burnham propose we do this? Almost all ideas seem great on paper, but when it comes to practically don't it, it just isn't possibly or do-able (think back to before the Wright brothers finally invented the plane, before that we had people strapping boards to there arms, take a running start, flapping there arms and jumping off cliffs...sure on paper that might sound like a good idea, I mean, the boards are like wings, and if birds, who have wings, can fly like that, why can't people?) How does Mr. Burnham propose we "shut off" internet website content prior to say 9pm so that children and minors are protected from things like that? I'm sure Mr. Burnham must have some sort of idea written out on how he thinks it can be done, I don't think he'd just propose it without a plan? or could he?..hmmm...

Isn't there already something in place for parents to protect there children (I may be wrong, correct me if I am) for offensive, inappropriate content and websites they do not approve of?
Off the top of my head I can name:

- CyberSitter
- NetNanny
- SafeEyes
- Cyber Patrol

And I do know that there are several other quality programs for parents, With these programs already in existance, do we really need to go with rating systems?

What do you guys think about this?

RIAA axes P2P file-sharing lawsuits

Those of you who regularly share music over the Internet, Whether legally or illegally, might have by now heard the news that the Recording Industry Association of America is shelving the practice of filing lawsuits against most individuals it suspects are pirating copyrighted music online.

I say most because the RIAA still reserves the right to sue heavy file sharers or those who ignore warnings to stop. Now, the RIAA has a new tactic. It’s made agreements with several Internet service providers in which the ISPs will help them police alleged law-breakers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the RIAA will send a letter to an ISP (internet service provider) when it thinks one of its customers is illegally sharing copyrighted music. The ISP will then either forward the letter to the alleged offender or ask him or her to stop.

If the file-sharer ignores the warning, he/she risks having his/her Internet service terminated or his/her bandwidth squeezed to the point where it takes watching the entire “Lord of the Rings” trilogy before all 11 tracks of Beyonce’s “Sasha..I am Fierce” are illegally in his/her possession. Ouch...that's slow!

So why the change of heart? The RIAA has sued some 30,000 people over the past five years, a tactic that’s proved expensive and , critics argue, has been largely ineffective. I mean, has anyone really stopped sharing their music library since the lawsuits began? I didn’t think so, And they’re not alone.
While CD sales continue to decline, the number of people sharing files online continues to increase.

This new deal makes me a little nervous because now, your ISP is poised to become an uptight hall monitor who'll narcs on every kid who smokes in the bathroom, instead of looking the other way even though it knows what you’re doing is against the rules.

I think ISPs should remain neutral.

Nervous? Maybe you should be. Maybe you shouldn’t.

You could continue to share copyrighted songs online, hoping you’ll never be caught.
At the very least, perhaps you should look to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation’s advice on how to avoid trouble (at least take a peek?).

There’s a decent chance you’ll never feel the RIAA’s tap on your shoulder. Plus, the way things are, I have no doubt word will spread quickly on how to cloak file-sharing so the ISPs and the RIAA can’t see what you’re up to.

The bottom line is: Sharing copyrighted material online is against the law.

To quote Dirty Harry, “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”