Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Table of legislation
- 1 States, firms and legitimacy of regulation: insoluble issues?
- 2 Internet co-regulation and constitutionalism
- 3 Self-organization and social networks
- 4 An empire entire of itself? Standards, domain names and government
- 5 Content regulation and the Internet
- 6 Private ISP censorship
- 7 Analyzing case studies
- 8 Internet co-regulation as part of the broader regulatory debate
- Bibliography
- Index
5 - Content regulation and the Internet
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Table of legislation
- 1 States, firms and legitimacy of regulation: insoluble issues?
- 2 Internet co-regulation and constitutionalism
- 3 Self-organization and social networks
- 4 An empire entire of itself? Standards, domain names and government
- 5 Content regulation and the Internet
- 6 Private ISP censorship
- 7 Analyzing case studies
- 8 Internet co-regulation as part of the broader regulatory debate
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
This chapter analyzes co-regulatory bodies ICSTIS, IMCB, ATVOD, NICAM and PEGI. The rating schemes for mobile phone, video online and computer games content derive from ‘purer’ forms of self-regulation but have morphed into a much more institutional form, while ICSTIS and NICAM are statute-derived co-regulators.
While standards and critical Internet resources are (at least in their extent) unique self- or co-regulatory institutions, there are many examples in content/applications and services delivered via the Internet which one could say are ???converging??? on the Internet. They raise regulatory problems which are created by the differing characteristics of the Internet compared to earlier media for which the regulatory regime was designed. Prior media were largely domestic, closed to interference, and therefore the content was ???certified???, protected and complied with cultural standards, norms and laws of the sovereign. In addition, these purely domestic ???receivers??? (rather than users) could not generate and mix content themselves, nor send it via p2p networks, nor communicate anonymously, nor send bulk communications virtually without cost. Signii cant dif erences exist between broadcast, mass print publishing services and the Internet.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Internet Co-RegulationEuropean Law, Regulatory Governance and Legitimacy in Cyberspace, pp. 130 - 163Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011