Should e-Books be Rated (like movies and video games)?

[Falbe Publishing]

I voted "Other" because I don't really care if ebooks are rated. I don't think it is akin to censorship because a rating is just meant to give a consumer a clue about the nature of the content. Is is squeaky clean? Is it violent? Is it sexy? Sometimes these things are nice to know.

If ratings were required (by who I don't know) then they would have to self labelled by the publisher or author. Who could possibly read everything and give it a rating?

I don't think there's much to worry about here. Not going to happen.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Falbe Publishing

I voted "Other" because I don't really care if ebooks are rated. I don't think it is akin to censorship because a rating is just meant to give a consumer a clue about the nature of the content. Is is squeaky clean? Is it violent? Is it sexy? Sometimes these things are nice to know.

If ratings were required (by who I don't know) then they would have to self labelled by the publisher or author. Who could possibly read everything and give it a rating?

I don't think there's much to worry about here. Not going to happen.

I'll give you an answer to that analogous to movies and records.

If you are not rated, you cannot be shown in major movie houses in the US. Likewise, in many stores, if your studio has a history of not marking the albums with content notices, stores will not sell your work.

To bring it fully, the answer is simple. If you're required to be rated to be in major book stores, and you are not rated, your work simply won't appear in major book stores. Like Walmart and what not, if your rating is too high, you might also not appear in book stores.

Every year, there are millions of movies made. Only a select few get put into the distribution process. There's an entire indie circuit that will never ever be shown in your standard theatre because of the proclivities of the MPRA.

Likewise, that is what could happen with books without too much work, and that is what concerns me.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Over

I've voted the 3rd option, but I'm wondering why people here say it's okay to rate movies and videogames, but not books. Dual criteria?

In my opinion, by the time a kid gets some interest in books, he will be old enough to take care of himself.

Or if he's too young and his interest in books was cultivated by his parents, I guess the parents also gave him some education in that area as well.

I'm also against *most* ratings of movies, music and games. I am fine with labels for AL, V and N. Any other targeting for audience should be done through advertising. And this rating only applies to movies, music and games because you don't need to be mature to access the content. Everyone can watch a movie and be impacted by it. And the content in those mediums affects you differently than content from books. But it takes education and maturity to access content in most books.

[Krystian Galaj]

I believe neither books nor movies or music should be rated - if it's to be a one-letter rating.

Nearly all of the books, games and movies I've seen have a short review printed on the back of the box, or if you buy on a webpage, on the page. This review should explain what is contained in the movie, so that the buyer could make an informed decision if it would offend him/her or not. Ratings like "mature" are thinking for the buyer, assumming we all have the same standards and opinions, and if I could, I'd prohibit such ratings.

[Libby Cone]

I'd love to see a more individualistic e-reader, who doesn't care for ratings, reads indie authors, makes their own one-of-a-kind cover for their reader (http://www.lionbrand.com/patterns/1177AD.html), and wants more controls on DRM than some arbitrary rating system.
Libby Cone
Author, War on the Margins: A Novel
http://tinyurl.com/5bcta4
http://tinyurl.com/6y973d

[ProfJulie]

I don't view a rating system as censorship, but I don't really see the need for them. And what criteria would be used anyway?

When I was a teenager, my parents read a book that they thought was really risque (I think the title was "Summer of 42"). They hid the book and acted peculiar whenever we entered the room while they were reading it. Their behavior piqued my curiosity and so I hunted for the book, found it and read it on the sly. I was disappointed when i got to the one or two steamy scenes that i figured my parents were so worked up over. I guess it all boils down to how one perceives the written word.

If my parents had not been so silly about the book, I probably would not have been so interested in reading it. Adding rating systems to books, movies, games, seems to only provoke more interest in "mature audience" rated items. Why let some impersonal agency attempt to regulate such things?....Let the parents figure out and regulate what they deem appropriate or inappropriate for their own children.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Libby Cone

I'd love to see a more individualistic e-reader, who doesn't care for ratings, reads indie authors, makes their own one-of-a-kind cover for their reader (http://www.lionbrand.com/patterns/1177AD.html), and wants more controls on DRM than some arbitrary rating system.
Libby Cone
Author, War on the Margins: A Novel
http://tinyurl.com/5bcta4
http://tinyurl.com/6y973d

Did you convert the purse pattern, or are you using the bag as a case?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Danny Fekete

Are we cool with this? You say "supposedly," Steve, so I figure you've got some reservations about the universal applicability of parents and guardians acting as censors on their children until the point they're "no longer children." This "right" has usually seemed problematic to me: the state often invests directly in the individuals which comprise it, so does that investment entitle the state or its representatives any control over what the children are exposed to?

I understand that not all children are equal, some more mature at certain ages than others (and, of course, measuring maturity by age isn't very reliable). However, children still need to be cared for by others until they are ready to go out on their own, and the responsibility of caring includes education. Education should be done in an orderly fashion to be the most successful, and that includes exposing children to certain ideas in orderly stages.

All that said... not all parents are equal, either... nor are their surroundings, educational institutions, etc. So no one curriculum is going to work for everyone. I believe in the theory of guided upbringing, but in practice, every child and every situation will vary, and there should be enough leeway in the system to accommodate this. In reality, there's rarely that much leeway, so you get mass solutions that don't fit every child. That doesn't mean all guidance should be thrown out... just that more effort should be taken to make up for the areas in which mass education doesn't fit an individual.

How much should the state control that guidance? As much as it needs to, to maintain and support the society... that's the realistic answer, though it's obviously not always the popular answer.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Redcard

To bring it fully, the answer is simple. If you're required to be rated to be in major book stores, and you are not rated, your work simply won't appear in major book stores. Like Walmart and what not, if your rating is too high, you might also not appear in book stores.

Every year, there are millions of movies made. Only a select few get put into the distribution process. There's an entire indie circuit that will never ever be shown in your standard theatre because of the proclivities of the MPRA.

Likewise, that is what could happen with books without too much work, and that is what concerns me.

It's a valid point. However, in an age where consumers can buy products online without going to the major bookstores (or movie theatres), it is becoming less and less important whether works are seen in the movie houses and bookstores. Today you can buy direct-to-DVD movies, as well as download unrated material. You can also buy x-rated e-books without going through any screening process (depending on the origin of the seller). This is why ratings may be ultimately doomed to extinction... there is always someone, somewhere willing to sell the product to you, ratings or not.

Descriptors transcend ratings by removing the barrier at the sellers' end, and placing the barrier at your end.

[Nergal]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

[...]I already have notices informing customers of the type of content in each of my books as a matter of course. [...]

This is what I would call an appropriate rating-system. It is the author himself, who has an natural right to do so. I would even say the bookseller can do so - he is in the role of an consultant. And this is already done splendidly: have a look at all those free e-book websites: I only mention here http://www.manybooks.net - it has categories like '[previously] banned books', 'adventure', 'travel' and so on. But it is not a global classification, it is the opinion of individuals to place this book here and another there.

That gives the freedom of choice - and that is one part of what freedom is about.

[Tali]

All ratings systems are censorship. If you don't like what your kid is watching, you have two options: Censor it yourself or talk to them about what they are watching/reading/listening to. Definitely don't expect anyone else to do the job for you!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Tali

All ratings systems are censorship.

Ratings systems are NOT censorship. Forcing creators to remove parts of their creation IS censorship. Not allowing people to see material because of a rating IS censorship. Let's not condemn a book because it has the potential to be thrown at someone's head.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Ratings systems are NOT censorship.

There can be a certain amount of self-censorship if authors try to shape their creations not to please themselves or the readers, but to get a certain rating or label. It's like students not studying to gain knowledge and understand a subject, but to pass the exams.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Jellby

There can be a certain amount of self-censorship if authors try to shape their creations not to please themselves or the readers, but to get a certain rating or label. It's like students not studying to gain knowledge and understand a subject, but to pass the exams.

There's nothing wrong with self-censorship, where you're making your own choice. If I decide not to have a character cuss a blue streak, in order to make my book more palatable to some readers, that is my choice to make, and my right to make it.

It's when that decision is forced upon you/taken away from you that it is objectionable.

[Justy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Ratings systems are NOT censorship. Forcing creators to remove parts of their creation IS censorship. Not allowing people to see material because of a rating IS censorship. Let's not condemn a book because it has the potential to be thrown at someone's head.

I agree with this completely. I may not want to read certain about subject matter or books with blue language, but I want the choice to pick up that book or not. If a rating system could possibly be used to limit the choices I have or my child will have as he gets older than I want nothing to do with it.