U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–844PS 2001

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY’S EFFORTS TO CURB CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT CONTENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 20, 2001

Serial No. 107–60

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana

JANE HARMAN, California

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

Vice Chairman

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

(Ex Officio)

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

BART STUPAK, Michigan

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JANE HARMAN, California

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

TOM SAWYER, Ohio

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Lowenstein, Douglas, President, Interactive Digital Software Association . 25

McMillon, Doug, Senior Vice President and General Merchandise Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ........................................................................... 38

Peeler, C. Lee, Associate Director of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade

Commission ................................................................................................... 18

Rosen, Hilary B., President and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of America ........................................................................... 34

Valenti, Jack, President and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture Association of America ...................................................................................... 31

White, Daphne, Executive Director, The Lion and Lamb Project ................ 41

Material submitted for the record by:

Video Software Dealers Association, prepared statement of ........................ 75

(III)

(1)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT

INDUSTRY’S EFFORTS TO CURB CHILDREN’S

EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT CONTENT

FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman)

presiding.

Members present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Largent,

Cubin, Shimkus, Pickering, Terry, Tauzin (ex officio), Markey,

McCarthy, Luther, Stupak, Harman, and Sawyer.

Staff present: Linda Bloss-Baum, majority counsel; Yong Choe,

legislative clerk; Andrew W. Levin, minority counsel; and Brendan

Kelsay, minority professional staff member.

Mr. UPTON. Good morning, everyone. We are expecting one vote

on the floor within the hour, and then the House will be adjourned

for the week, so we are going to try to move as quickly as we can.

I had a discussion last night with Ranking Member Markey and

Vice Chairman Stearns with regard to interest by the members of

the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, and

agreed to ask for a unanimous request that the members of that

subcommittee wishing to participate in our hearing today, in fact,

can, and we will be recognizing members based on when the gavel

fell. So, you will take note of the members that are here. And so

I will make that request without objection and so rule.

Good morning. In preparation for today’s hearing, I listened to a

few songs and a recording that was labeled as having explicit content, and I have to say it was very explicit, especially the sounds

of a woman’s throat being slit. This music is not by some fly bynight artist, it is by a recent Grammy award winner. And if you

think that this type of graphic violence has no effect on our kids,

well, think again. And if you don’t believe me, ask the parents at

Columbine or ask the parents at Paducah. These are graphic images, and, for the parents in this room, they are particularly unpleasant ones.

For every Columbine there are hundreds of acts of school violence that go unnoticed and unreported every day. And for every

kid like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, there are hundreds of kids

that aren’t shooting, but that are pushing, shoving and insulting

2

each other with greater frequency and anger than ever before. So

after each incident like Columbine or Paducah, we ask ourselves,

how did it happen? We go on TV. We hold town meetings, we pass

laws, and we ask ourselves how can we stop this from happening

again, while at the same time we hope and pray that next time it

is not our kid’s school, daycare center or school bus.

We have learned from history, whoever tells the story defines the

culture. Today the average child in America witnesses over 200,000

acts of violence by the time that they graduate from high school.

This breaks down to over 30 acts of violence every day. This figure

does not even take into consideration some of the explicit lyrics

from artists that they hear repeated over and over again.

If you think I am being overly dramatic, consider this: There are

plenty of reports dating back to 1955 that have demonstrated a direct correlation between violent media and aggressive behavior in

children. One key study, in fact, demonstrates that a group of 22

young folks, those who watched more TV by age 8 were more likely

by age 30 to have committed more serious crimes, be aggressive

drinkers and punish children more harshly than others. Further, a

study released this past April noted that violent video game players are more likely to argue with teachers and get into physical

fights than their peers.

So if indeed these figures are true, and mass media is telling the

stories, what kind of culture have they defined? Today’s hearing is

not about the First Amendment, pointing fingers, assessing blame

or condemning the entertainment industry. It is instead about corporate responsibility and the stewardship of public trust. As a parent of two small kids, I know that child-rearing starts in the home

and believe that parents cannot shirk their responsibility to police

their kids’ activities to limit their exposure to violence.

But I say to our panel today that we cannot do it alone. Yes, the

First Amendment is a right, but with it comes a weighty responsibility, so to a large degree we must rely on you, the leaders of the

entertainment industry, to do the right thing by not marketing violent material to our kids.

So today we are here to do what parents on their own do not

have the collective power to do: demand that the entertainment industry tell us what they have done, what they are going to continue to do to prevent the marketing of violent material to kids.

Let me say first and foremost that I am deeply troubled by the

FTC’s conclusion in its April 2001 follow-up report to Congress that

states the music recording industry has not taken any visible steps

with respect to explicit-content-labeled music. Ms. Rosen, several

months have gone by, and I am hopeful that you will have some

good news to report today on its effect in that regard. I would hate

to think that the music recording industry is out of tune with the

rest of the entertainment industry. We don’t need lip-syncing or lip

service. We really do want bold, real and concrete steps.

Also I want to commend Wal-Mart for its good corporate citizenship. As the second largest retailer of music in the Nation, WalMart has chosen to sell only that music whose explicit lyrics have

been edited out. Wal-Mart is using its market power to make a difference and should be applauded for its voluntary efforts.

3

The bottom line is this: We all need to work together for parents

and children of our country. I assure you that until we successfully

snuff the marketing of violent material to kids, this Congress and

our constituents will not rest.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

Good morning.

In preparation for today’s hearing, I listened to a few songs on a recoding that

was labeled as having explicit content. And, I have to say, it was explicit—especially

the sounds of a woman’s throat being slit.

This music is not by some fly-by-night artist—it’s by a recent Grammy award winner. If you think that this type of graphic violence has no effect on our kids, think

again. And if you don’t believe me, ask the parents at Columbine. Ask the parents

at Peducah.

These are graphic images. And for those parents in the room—they are especially

unpleasant ones. For every Columbine, there are hundreds of acts of school violence

that go unnoticed, and unreported each day. And, for every kid like Eric Harris and

Dylan Klebold there are hundreds of kids that aren’t shooting. But they are pushing, shoving, insulting each other with greater frequency and anger than ever before.

So, after each incident like Columbine, or Peducah, we ask ourselves how it happened. We go on television. We hold town hall meetings. We pass laws. And we ask

ourselves ‘‘how can we stop this from happening again,’’ while at the same time we

hope and pray that, next time, it’s not our child’s school, daycare center, or school

bus.

We’ve learned from history whoever tells the stories define the culture.

Today the average child in America witnesses over 200,000 acts of violence by the

time they graduate from high school. This breaks down to over 30 acts of violence

per day. This figure does not even take into consideration some of the explicit lyrics

from artists they hear repeated over and over again.

If you think I’m being overly dramatic, consider this: There are plenty of reports

dating back to 1955 have demonstrated a direct correlation between violent media

and aggressive behavior in children. One key study, in fact, demonstrates that of

a group of 22 young people, those who watched more television by age eight were

more likely by age 30 to have committed more serious crimes, be aggressive drinkers, and punish children more harshly than others. Further, a study released this

past April noted that, ‘‘Violent video game players are more likely to argue with

teachers and get into physical fights,’’ than their peers.

So, if indeed these figures are true, and mass media is telling the stories, what

kind of culture have they defined?

Today’s hearing is not about the First Amendment, pointing fingers, assessing

blame, or condemning the entertainment industry. But it is about corporate responsibility and the stewardship of the public trust.

As a parent, of two small children, I know that childrearing starts in the home,

and believe parents cannot shirk their responsibility to police their children’s activities to limit their exposure to violence.

But I say to the panel today—we can’t do it alone.

Yes, the First Amendment is a right—but with it comes a weighty responsibility.

So, to a large degree, we must rely on you, the leaders of the entertainment industry, to do the right thing by not marketing violent material to children.

So, today, we are here to do what parents, on their own, do not have the collective

power to do,—demand that the entertainment industry tell us what they have done,

and what they are going to continue to do, to prevent the marketing of violent material to children.

Let me say, first and foremost, that I am deeply troubled by the FTC’s conclusion

in its April 2001 follow-up Report to Congress that states ‘‘the music recording industry has not taken any visible steps with respect to explicit-content labeled

music.’’

Ms. Rosen, several months have gone by and am hopeful that you will have some

good news to report today on its efforts in this regard. I would hate to think that

the music recording industry is out of tune with the rest of the entertainment industry.

We don’t need lip-syncing or lip service—we want real, bold and concrete steps.

4

Also, I want to commend Walmart for its good corporate citizenship. As the second

largest retailer of music in the nation, Walmart has chosen to sell only that music

whose explicit lyrics have been edited out. Walmart is using its market power to

make a difference and should be applauded for its voluntary efforts.

The bottom line is this: We all need to work together for parents and children

of this nation.

I assure you, until we successfully snuff out the marketing of violent material to

children, the Congress, and our constituents will not rest.

Mr. UPTON. I yield to my friend and colleague, ranking member

of the subcommittee, Mr. Markey.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I want

to commend you for holding this hearing today. It is an important

subject that millions of American families really care a lot about,

and I believe that it is quite timely for us to check with the industry, with the Federal Trade Commission to ascertain the amount

of progress that has been made in the wake of the Federal Trade

Commission reports on this issue.

Parents have a right to know whether certain media products out

on the market today contain material that is inappropriate for

viewing by their children. This is true whether the item is a video

game, a CD or a movie. Parents have rights. There is ample evidence in numerous studies of the exposure to media violence on

children and a resulting desensitization to violence and acceptance

of violent behavior. Both for this reason and to respond to parents’ concerns, the video game reporting and movie industries have put

in place voluntary ratings and parental advisories on their entertainment products. These warnings advise parents of content that

may contain explicit violence, language, drug use or sex.

Now, last September the Federal Trade Commission issued a report that found that many companies in the entertainment industry were marketing products to minors that were otherwise rated

inappropriate for minors, or which recommended parental permission for use or purchase by minors. At the time the Federal Trade

Commission called upon the three entertainment industries studied

to adopt voluntary policies prohibiting these marketing practices

and to vigorously enforce their own self-regulatory policies.

After the Federal Trade Commission report, I wrote to then FTC

Chairman Pitofsky to ascertain the current authority of the Federal Trade Commission to take action with respect to marketing

violent products to kids under its power to police unfair and deceptive business practices. Chairman Pitofsky responded that, in his

opinion, the Federal Trade Commission may have limited ability to

take legal action in tough borderline cases.

I am eager to hear what new FTC Chairman Muris’ view is on

this legal interpretation. In addition, I am also eager to ascertain

what the Federal Trade Commission intends to do when the matter

is not a borderline tough call, but a flagrant marketing of violence

to children. What are we going to do in the obvious cases? Some

in the industry were going so far as to round up 11-year-old kids

for focus groups in the mall to figure out how to better market Rrated products to the child audience. So is that really a difficult

case?

In April of this year, the Federal Trade Commission followed up

on their previous report, and this hearing provides the subcommittee the opportunity to better understand the Federal Trade

5

Commission’s more recent finding, as well as review progress

across various industries. Again, I want to commend Chairman

Upton for calling this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from

our witnesses.

Mr. STEARNS [presiding]. I thank the gentleman.

The distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman

from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin.

Chairman TAUZIN. I thank the chairman.

First of all, let me make a statement that should precede any one

of these hearings, and that is that this committee in particular, of

all the committees in Congress, is charged with an obligation under

the Constitution to protect First Amendment free speech of our citizens. We start from that proposition. That is why this committee,

when it looked at the question of ratings on movies, instead of

sponsoring and pushing legislation from Congress to regulate the

material that motion pictures present to us on the screens of cable

and television, instead took the hearing to Peoria, invited the industry to come and meet with citizens and to discuss with them a

voluntary system. Out of it was born the new rating system for motion pictures.

And I want to commend the industry for not only adopting that

rating system, following those citizen meetings with this committee, but, more importantly, for following up with even more information than the rating systems provided, and not just saying

why a motion picture is rated R—that it is rated R, but why it is

rated R, giving consumers more information about why the motion

picture industry rated a particular movie a certain way, why it said

that children under 17, for example, should have a parent available

with them when they watch a certain movie.

Second, I want to commend the video game industry. I particularly appreciate the efforts of the industry 6 years ago to institute

the Entertainment Software Rating Board for a relatively new industry, recognizing that there were great consumer concerns about

the violent content of many video games. The industry not only

went into the business of advising parents about the character of

some of these games, but also instituted a system helping Americans understand why a particular game was rated the way it was.

I think those have been very important and significant advances

that have helped parents make decisions about the entertainment

choices of their children, and I thank you for that.

And the recording industry has likewise instituted a program to

at least advise parents that recording products may contain explicit

material, but the question today, of course, following the report of

the FTC is is that enough when it comes to recordings? And we

ought to think about that today. And the question is, should the

recording industry, excuse the pun, get in sync with your industry

counterparts when it comes to giving parents a little more information about why a particular recording has been rated explicit material.

We know that 15 of Billboard’s current top 50 albums, that is 30

percent of the most popular albums, now contain that parental

warning. That is an awful high percentage. Maybe parents ought

to know a little more about why a particular recording received

that label.

6

First of all, let me concede that an explicit video scene in a movie

or a video game is different than a song and the words which can

be interpreted many different ways. But as the chairman of the

committee pointed out in his statement, when technological improvements allow a song to include simulated real-life sounds like

the slitting of a human throat while the voiceover sings out, bleed,

bleed, bleed, there is no more room for interpretation. That is pretty violent stuff.

I want to tell you a quick story to give you the edges of this debate. I am watching the animated movie Popeye with my young

son, who is now a young man, but he was then a very young child.

In the animated movie Bluto punches out all the windows in a

rage, and then goes on his way, and my young son jumped off my

lap without my being able to catch him, and he ran out to the glass

storm window and the door in the front of the house and punched

his way through it. The scene obviously translated into something

in his mind that made him think he could do just like Bluto and

punch the glass door. And the glass obviously didn’t react like

video glass, cartoon glass. It came down and cut his arm and cut

an artery, and he was bleeding profusely. I remember taking him

to the hospital and the doctor said, the boy will do fine; I think we

have to hospitalize the dad. He looks in terrible shape. It was a

horrible experience for me, and not just for my son.

Obviously, we can’t censor cartoons, and we certainly don’t want

to be in the business of government supervision of whether or not

Bluto is violent or not violent in a Popeye cartoon. That is the far

edges of that stuff. But on the other hand, we need to recognize

that children respond, they react, as the chairman said, to what

they see and hear and what they feel, and when we give them an

overabundance of this stuff, without helping parents who want to

make sure their kids are not exposed to too much of it, too violent

a performance, or too violent a scene, or too violent a video, you

know, we are maybe not doing our job properly.

And to all of you who are working with us, let me thank you, and

I think you all are. And this meeting is obviously a chance for us

literally to publicly measure the progress you are making in the

private sector to help parents with this thorny kind of issue. How

do we help our parents of America know what it is their children

are watching and seeing and playing with as they entertain themselves growing up? And so I want to thank you for the progress you

are making. I want to encourage you to continue that progress. I

particularly want to encourage the recording industry to think seriously about maybe if we could improve on the explicit warning ratings and, as the FTC has pointed out, continue in the private sector doing what we in government are very loathe to do, and that

is to get into the business of regulating the content of material in

a free speech society.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. The subject

of violence in the media is one that many parents often raise with members when

we are home in our districts. They are rightly concerned about the effects that proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
7

lific violence in the media may have on their children, and generally are eager to

limit their kids’ exposure to it as much as possible.

But parents need help in the 21st century to understand what exactly is contained in the movies their kids watch, the music they listen to, and the video games

they play. Gone are the days when there was one family phonograph player in the

living room. Today kids listen to music over personal headsets that do not allow parents to monitor what is going directly into their children’s ears and heads.

I commend the efforts taken by the motion picture industry and the video games

industry to give parents additional information and guidelines to better understand

what is contained within a particular video game or movie. I particularly appreciate

the efforts of the video game industry that six years ago took the initiative to institute an Entertainment Software Rating Board for its relatively new industry that

many parents knew little about. This board provides a rating to each video game

based on age appropriateness as well clear information about the content that influenced that rating, such as violence, strong language or suggestive themes. I encourage the video game industry to continue to educate consumers about these ratings

to retailers and consumers who may not yet be familiar with the relatively new system.

The motion picture industry has made great efforts to supplement their traditional system...the one most folks have relied upon for decades... with descriptions

about why R rated movies may be inappropriate for children under 17 not accompanied by a parent. Similarly, the video game industry has developed its own new

age based system that also describes why a particular game may earn a M: for mature rating.

As for the recording industry—I call upon you to get ‘‘in sync’’ with your industry

counterparts to help educate consumers about the material that your members

themselves deem to be ‘‘explicit.’’ I hope that you will recognize opportunities to improve your industry efforts to help parents better understand your products. I would

like you to seriously readdress whether or not the current one size fits all labeling

system for music could be expanded to provide additional information about the content consumers can expect to hear. When 15 of Billboard’s current top 50 albums—

that’s 30 percent of the most popular albums today—receive parental advisory warnings, I believe the industry has a responsibility to let consumers know why.

I do agree with the RIAA that the informational systems regarding content should

be tailored to the specific medium that they rate. Unlike an explicit video scene in

a movie or video game, a single song can mean many different things to many different people. However, as technological advances allow artists to include simulated

real life sounds, such as mutilating another human being, into their work, there is

less room for individual interpretation of a musical piece. Yes—Lyrics alone are indeed susceptible to varying interpretations, however, the sound of slicing a human

being’s throat while shouting the word ‘‘bleed,’’ arguably leaves less to the imagination.

This Committee is well aware of the First Amendment implications of government

regulation of artistic material. But there is legislation currently before the Energy

and Commerce Committee that would enable the government to enforce policies

against marketing and selling this material to minors, and we need to think about

it very carefully. I hope that we can use this opportunity today to learn more about

what industry is doing on their own to address this problem to avoid the need for

Congress to step in and take action.

Finally, I want to apologize to all the Members of the Committee for the inconvenience regarding late testimony. The last time I reviewed the Committee instructions

that are sent out to witnesses, they seemed to clearly lay out the directions for when

and how to submit testimony. These rules exist in order to allow staff and Members

time to review testimony in advance and have the most productive hearing possible.

I hope that in the future all witnesses will respect this Committee process.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, and I

look forward to asking our witnesses some questions.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize my good friend and colleague from the great State of

Michigan Mr. Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

on a subject that greatly concerns me. As a father, a legislator and

as a member of this subcommittee, I take seriously my and our responsibility to ensure that the entertainment industry acts to protect children from violent and inappropriate content. UnfortuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
8

nately, we are here today because the entertainment industry

needs to do more.

As the witnesses will testify today, these industries are not subject to any regulations currently on how they advertise or rate their

video or audio content. We ask them to regulate themselves in part

out of our First Amendment considerations. But the First Amendment does not offer carte blanche to businesses to ignore their responsibilities to consumers, parents and to children, and the government has somewhat greater latitude in regulating in the area

of commercial speech.

My colleague Zach Wamp and I have introduced the 21st Century Media Responsibility Act of 2001 to require a standardized

identical product labeling system for interactive video games, video

programs, motion pictures and music. This uniform and consistent

labeling system will be a valuable tool to parents and consumers

who want more information about the games their children play,

the music they listen to and the movies and television shows they

watch. I think we need to shift the burden of proof. Why should

parents have to muddle through an assortment of different ratings

systems for each entertainment medium? Violence is violence. It is

no different to see a violent image in a video game than on a movie

screen. There is no reason why the same identical label cannot

apply to each.

Our legislation asks the industries to work together to develop

a standardized product labeling and advertising system to inform

consumers of the nature, context and intensity of violent content,

and the age appropriateness of their products. Subsequently, the

bill requires this system to be examined and approved by the FTC.

Our bill bans the domestic sale or the commercial distribution of

unlabeled products after 1 year. Further, retailers are required to

enforce the age restrictions on the products.

I commend those in the entertainment industry that have taken

steps to modify their advertising and labeling. While the FTC has

noted definite progress, I believe we need to do more. While we

wait for the industry to act, another child is exposed to explicitly

violent lyrics or images, and another and another. I agree with the

industry that we cannot prevent every such exposure, but the time

has come to take some serious action. I believe that our legislation

is necessary in order to hasten the process and to create a uniform,

identical, consistent labeling system so every parent and every consumer can easily identify the product’s content.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I look

forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding

this hearing today and allowing me to go out of order since I am

addressing 120 Boy Scouts who are in town at the Jamboree in the

next 10 minutes.

This is an important issue. Several of us have already stated our

roles as fathers. I have three small children, and we, of course,

keep a close eye and watch when we buy a Play Station game or

a video for the warning labels on there, and we pay close attention

to those. But we are here today to specifically look at the music inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
9

dustry and the evolution of the ‘‘explicicity’’ of the lyrics, both sexually, the language, violence.

That is a small part of what I think is really in the big picture

of, you know, the changes in our society and our culture today that

seem to be either ambivalent or accepting of those. I mean, here

we are—it is interesting when you think back when I was a child

and people were upset with the Rolling Stones song talking about

Let’s Spend the Night Together, or counterculture was measured

by parting your hair on the right or the left if you reference The

Who song there. And today it just seems like counterculture builds

up on the previous generation. Madonna seems tame and lame in

today’s world of Eminem.

So we have gone from criticizing in a society that is concerned

about a Stones song saying Let’s Spend the Night Together to the

Grammys awarding perhaps an artist with the most explicit violent

lyrics in today’s market. And what is concerning to me as a parent

is you listen to some of these songs on the radio, and you think,

God, these are terrible, but they are not bad. You know, okay, I can

at least understand why it is allowed. And then you listen to the

CD version, and it is a lot different and a lot more graphic. So as

a parent, you sit here and think—you listen to a song on the radio

and think it is close. I am not real comfortable with it from what

I heard on the radio, but I—you know, I will let this one pass.

It is just unfortunate now that we have a society or a music industry that allows—lulls parents into sleep, giving one version for

radio play and an entirely different version for a CD version, the

record version. And then you—as a parent, as I stated, we look for

the warning labels on the games that we buy, the videos, computer

games, and I appreciate the level of the ratings, so I understand

they are age-appropriate. I understand that if there is a language

issue or a violence issue, we particularly want to steer our children

away from violence in video games and the type of things we do.

I don’t have that option as a parent.

Now, fortunately my children are pretty young. We are still into

some pretty early type of music. We are still with Vegetales and

things like that. We are just getting into All Star, those type of

songs, with my oldest who is seven. But I really want, as a parent,

the ability, since society has changed and we are no longer outraged as a society with songs that—with explicit lyrics, me as an

individual parent, I am, and I want the power to decide and be involved in what products my children are listening to and what

products they are purchasing. So we are here today to have a great

discussion on this important issue.

I yield back my time.

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentlelady Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you

for holding this hearing, and I thank the witnesses who have taken

time to come and share their thoughts with us today.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the pocket guide entertainment ratings that were provided to us, and I am glad we have

them as we have this discussion today.

And I need to fully disclose that I am a recipient of the highest

honors that the American Civil Liberties Union can bestow on anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
10

one, because, Mr. Chairman, I stood up for the rights of you to express yourself in the manner that you so chose to say the things

you want to say, to pray the prayers you want to pray, to really

truly have the freedoms that this Bill of Rights and great country

affords us. And so I guess, though, I can’t let you yell ‘‘Fire’’ in one

of Jack Valenti’s theaters.

But other than that I think that this great country really has so

much to offer, and while you were listening to Eminem, and perhaps you were upset by some of the lyrics, the messages in his

songs about being angry when your wife cheats on you and, you

know, betrayed by someone you trust, and being upset with authority figures who keep you from doing the things you want to do, I

think those are kind of classic themes in other literary forms and

over the years have been expressed by other controversial people,

whether it was Shakespeare or the Beatles, as has been referenced

or other artists.

But I really do think that the industry has gone a long way toward addressing the concerns we have raised in the past. This is

one way, and labeling their product for parents is certainly another. So I would hope that this hearing is all about whether or not

there is anything we can do collaboratively to continue to improve

the process of sharing information, but I certainly hope it won’t go

in the direction of trying to abrogate those rights provided by our

Bill of Rights and our Constitution and doing anything to minimize

the beauty of the freedom of expression that we have in this country that others all over the world admire.

So I look forward to the testimony, and I will put my formal remarks in the record, and I thank you for this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Karen McCarthy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAREN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing on the entertainment

industry’s efforts to curb children’s exposure to violent content. I look forward to the

testimony of the witnesses on this issue, and the dialogue that will follow.

In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report that

found that entertainment companies were intentionally marketing violent, adult-oriented products to children. In response to the report and public pressure, the motion

picture and video game industries have made a good-faith effort to improve their

marketing practices. The FTC cited this improvement in its April 2001 follow-up report.

I have a long-standing interest in the music industry, particularly with respect

to recording artists. My district in Kansas City is the one of the major jazz and

blues hubs and home to legendary recording artists. Throughout my career I have

worked to strengthen their rights and preserve their creative freedom. I am concerned about the First Amendment implications of labeling content that may be offensive to some, but is not considered obscene under legal doctrine. The industry’s

explicit lyric warning system is a voluntary one. Artists and record companies are

not legally obligated to label their content.

I am interested in hearing the witnesses’ opinions on how to strike a reasonable

balance between the freedom of artistic expression and providing parents with the

tools they need to determine if movies, video games, and music contain explicit images or lyrics they do not want their children exposed to.

I am pleased that the entertainment industry has taken steps to improve its marketing practices, and I encourage them to continue to do so.

It would be unreasonable for us to be the content police for all entertainment

products on the market, but it is fully reasonable to establish some boundaries

where both free expression and children’s best interests coexist. Through collaborative efforts, a consensus can be developed which makes progress on this issue. In

11

the end, however, it is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to determine what entertainment is appropriate for their kids.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that both you

and I have a personal interest, and I look forward to working with

you on this so parents are given the necessary tools to ensure their

children are protected from harmful and violent entertainment.

While the primary responsibility of policing what children are exposed to ultimately rests with parents, industry to a certain extent

shares responsibility for making parents’ already difficult job even

more difficult. My colleagues—the Federal Trade Commission September 2000 Report on Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children concludes, ‘‘individual companies in each industry routinely

market to children the very products that have the industries’ own

parental warnings or ratings with age restrictions due to their violent content, end quote. The report also exposed, quote, extensive

marketing and in many cases explicit targeting of violent R-rated

films to children under the age of 17 and violent PG-13 films to

children under 13.’’ In a follow-up report earlier this year, the FTC found that the

movie and electronic games industry had made some progress on

both fronts, but that the music recording industry had made no

visible response to the September report. The Commission found

that the music industry, recording industry, unlike the movie and

electronic games industry, had not implemented the reforms its

trade association announced just before the Commission issued its

report. Regrettably, the Commission also concluded that advertising for explicit-content-labeled music recordings routinely appeared on popular teen television programs. As many know, while

some of these albums have lyrics promoting misogyny, police

hating and other types of plain hate, the lyrics which, of course, in

this particular example by Eminem, Kill You, that we can’t even

put into the record or we can’t even quote today, adults have a

right and choice to listen to these products. However, it is a result

of these same products not only falling into the hands of children,

but as it now appears from the report, they are being marketed toward children.

There is a huge outcry, of course, from this committee and the

committee that I chair. So like all of us, we are a proponent of

small government, but when this industry fails to institute a meaningful and self-regulatory program, I think the parents and members of the community believe government has an obligation to do

something, to intervene.

Similar legislation that does this has been referred to the subcommittee I chair, which is called Commerce, Trade and Consumer

Protection Subcommittee, and it declares that targeted marketing

to minors of an adult-rated motion picture, music recording or electronic game shall be treated as a deceptive act or practice within

the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act and considered

unlawful unless the producer or distributor responsible for advertising or marketing adheres to a voluntary self-regulatory system

that comports with criteria established by the FTC.

12

Mr. Chairman, though legislation at this time might not be the

right answer, I can tell you what the simple and obvious answer

is: the meaningful and wide practice of self-regulation by industry

of not marketing harmful material to children. That seems pretty

simple. However, I think you and I agree we will not stand idly by

as our children are reduced to nothing more than dollar signs and

profit margins. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Commerce,

Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, I intend to work

with our ranking members, Mr. Towns and yourself, to find a solution that is both reasonable and well-balanced. And thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having these hearings, and I want to thank the members who are here this morning

and our witnesses for taking part.

I think it is important to remember where the report that brings

us together today came from. It was requested by the previous

President in the wake of the Columbine shootings and reflects a

problem that is enormously complex. I don’t want to minimize the

importance of what we are talking about here today, I think it is

important, but it is important not to forget the other contributing

factors in terms of what happens with youth violence, and it is also

important to understand that sometimes we don’t measure youth

violence in ways that make sense. Too often the crime statistics in

this country reflect the entire spectrum of crime and do not get at

the core cause. They don’t even get at the core measurement of

where crime occurs. And let me give you an example.

For the last decade we have seen every mayor in the United

States talk about the reduction overall in violent crimes in their

cities. The truth of the matter is that most violent crime in America occurs—in fact, it is probably around the world—occurs between

the ages of 18 and 35 among men. For the last decade that population as a component of the entire population of the United States

has been the smallest that it has been in modern times. Today the

largest population component in our Nation’s history, those who

are enrolled in school right now, is the largest in our Nation’s history. It is larger than it was at the point that the baby boom was

in school. And as that moves into that violent crime age range, we

will see violent crime grow all across the United States.

It is not solely a matter of the entertainment that our children

are seeing today. That may be a contributing factor, but I suspect

strongly that it is far more a matter of hormones, normal maturation, behavior that has, for millennia, occurred in that age range.

It is no accident that it is that age of young men that we ask to

go to war.

I just hope we can keep in mind as we think about the subject

that we are talking about today and its obvious importance, Mr.

Chairman, something very fundamental, and that is the complexity

of cause as we look at phenomena that touch our entire society.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my

time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mrs. Cubin.

13

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a written statement. I won’t repeat the

statements that the other members have already said, so I would

just make one observation so we can get on to the panel, and that

I will be referring to the CD that—by Eminem that was a

Grammy-winning CD. And in my mind, the industry, or the organization, or the other entertainers rewarding an entertainer that

sings a song or chants or raps, and it is a very appealing beat, it

is sort of like a tribal beat, it does draw you in, it is appealing, but

then when you hear the words ‘‘raping your mother, killing your

mother,’’ I think the industry should be embarrassed that a song

like that would be an award-winning piece of entertainment. And

I also think that when a song or a video game or any other awardwinning piece of entertainment is like that, then it encourages

other entertainers to do the exact same thing.

I don’t in any way want to stop free speech. I am one of the

stronger proponents of free speech in this Congress. But we know

that this problem is multifaceted, violence in our country, and we

know that there are more moms that work, which leaves less time

for families to be together and teach their children the responsibilities that they have. We know they have more privileges with fewer

responsibilities, and that never works when you are raising a

young person.

Some people think guns are the problem. You take guns out of

society, and we don’t have the problem anymore. None of that is

true. It is a combination of all of those things, teaching responsibility and the examples that we set.

So I plead with the industry, don’t award songs about suicide

and songs about rape and the disgusting things I heard this morning. Don’t make those award-winning pieces of entertainment.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have continuously been disappointed in the behavior of the entertainment industry when it comes to producing violent content and then marketing those products

to under aged children.

As a mother, I understand the difficulty of raising children. My children, though,

were never subjected to the type and magnitude of violence so prevalent in today’s

entertainment industry.

When my children visited the local video arcade I didn’t think much of them playing games like Contra, Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, or Street Fighter.

Violent as those games were for their time, they look like Disney films compared

to today’s violence-oriented video games. Granted, the percentage of violent, maturecontent video games is small compared to the overall number of games available.

My point, however, is that although the number of violent games may be a small

percentage, the content—the level and degree of violence—has gotten so poisonous

that it influences and affects the children who play them much more than games

10 or 15 years ago.

The realism of games like Diablo II, Quake and Doom really have dramatic affects

on young adults not to mention the children that may come in contact with them.

PC Gamer magazine called Quake, ‘‘. . . the biggest, baddest, bloodiest 3-D action

game ever conceived.’’ And USA Today called Quake, ‘‘Bloody Amazing.’’

Set a child in front of one of these games for an hour or two and look into their

eyes afterward. It is almost as if you can see their disconnection from reality.

It’s obvious why. Graphic pools of blood and severed body parts are pervasive in

these games and have a chilling influence on developing minds.

14

I commend video game manufacturers that are making real strides in producing

a greater number of truly entertaining and educational children’s video games.

For those video game manufacturers that continue to find the need to produce and

sell violent games, I call on them to continue efforts to target these games to the

appropriate audience in appropriate markets.

I also call on retailers to continue their efforts to stop the problem at the cash

register. Programs that call for carding young adults and children will help prevent—not stop, but prevent—these games from falling into the wrong hands.

As a parent—and maybe someday as a grandparent—I worry about what’s down

the road for our children in this regard.

Sex, violence and lewdness in movies, video games, and music lyrics are pushing

the envelope when it comes to decency—instead of ascending new heights of entertainment content we seem to be continuing a spiral down to new depths.

I wish there was no market for this type of entertainment—and I pray that someday there won’t be.

Since there is, though, I expect the music industry, the movie industry, and the

video game industry will continue to provide what their audiences are demanding.

The industry—because they will continue to produce this trash—must make life

easier for parents in providing information and education to help determine what

is right and appropriate for our children.

Rating systems are beneficial but they must be objective and err on the side of

our children and not your industry.

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this important hearing. I hope we all

feel better about the direction the entertainment industry is going after the hearing.

I yield back my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Ms. Harman.

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some very good friends on this hearing panel, and I would

point out to our committee that they are parents, too, and no doubt

they wish, as I do, that there was some magic pill we could give

our kids at infancy that would direct them to have good values at

all times and to make good judgments for themselves. Well, we

haven’t invented that pill yet. In fact, we haven’t invented pills to

curb very serious diseases, and I guess I might consider this one

of those diseases.

We have invented something else, though. It is called parents.

And I think that the primary responsibility for teaching values to

our kids, for making judgments about the music, the films, the

games our kids listen to and watch and play is with us, the parents. It is hard to do it.

I would point out to this panel, and maybe others have before

me, that my first encounter with Eminem lyrics was in my car

when one of my kids put the CD on the car stereo. It was horrifying. And that, of course, led to a conversation with my kids about

what they listen to, and then a very hard decision which my husband and I had to make about whether one of them could attend

an Eminem concert. Probably you have been through this, too, and

the answer is not always no, because if the answer is no, that may

make the stuff you are trying to teach them about more attractive

rather than less attractive.

At any rate, there isn’t a magic pill, and there isn’t a magic parent, but there is one answer that is wrong here, and that answer

is to legislate Federal censorship. And I think that the bill that

Senator Lieberman has introduced on the Senate side, as I have

said before, is, notwithstanding his good intentions, a dangerous

bill, and it will lead to Federal censorship. And frankly, I want to

be a better parent, but I know that as the parent I am—I am betVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
15

ter equipped to make the judgment about my kids than is the Federal Government.

I look forward to the testimony this morning.

Mr. STEARNS [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our panelists, and the FTC and our colleagues

for being here today.

I want to welcome Lorna Williams back to Rayburn 2123, my

former staffer. She is somewhere in the back there. I asked her

about her baby pictures. We spent a lot of time in this room together, and welcome back. It is great to see you.

This is—everybody has mentioned the importance of this issue.

I want to use it to bring my colleagues’ attention to a legislation

that Ed Markey and I dropped a couple of weeks ago: Dot Kids. It

is an attempt to have a safe location, like a section in a library— you know how they have a kids’ section in libraries that has helped

move kids into a section that is safe—and do the best we can to

help when there are not parents observing what they are doing on

the Internet.

And I would encourage you all to take a look at that, especially

after we look at this guide here and we go to the Internet, games

that are available on the Internet and the rating system there.

Level zero, none or no violence or explicit sex, nudity. Level zero

is none or sports-related. Then you go to level 1, 2, 3 and 4; starting at injury to human beings, to level four, rape or wanton, gratuitous violence. I would say that level zero could be available on a

Dot Kids site, and so that is really a benefit. So I want to encourage my colleagues to really look at that legislation. We are very optimistic.

The other problem with this in, the Army we always kept an acronym, KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. This is not simple. I mean,

it really isn’t, and I think the industry would agree. For every area,

whether it be the Internet or movies or TV, we have a different

guide, and it is not simple. And I think my colleague Mr. Stupak

mentioned it should be. And we ought to help in ways that we can

help educate and work with parents, and I don’t think that is too

much to ask.

We look forward to this hearing. It is always a tough issue when

you talk about free speech and constitutional rights, but there is

a role for assistance in at least identifying harmful, dangerous material.

Again, my last plug, Dot Kids. It is H.R. 2417. Write it down.

Look it up. We want a cosponsorship. And with that, I yield back

my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Oklahoma Mr. Largent is recognized for an

opening statement.

Mr. LARGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I come to this hearing, not only as a Member of Congress from

Oklahoma, but as a parent of four children, four teenagers. And I

guess I am not really a neutral panelist here. I have an opinion

borne out through experience of my own children to say to the entertainment industry that whatever you are doing, it is not enough.

16

It is just not enough. Whatever warning labels you are putting on,

whatever effort you are doing to self-police, it is not enough. It is

clearly not enough.

I am reminded of a book that C.S. Lewis wrote called The Abolition of Man, and in there he talks about bidding the gelding to be

fruitful. Bidding the gelding to be fruitful. And I think in many

cases that is what we are asking our kids to do today. We have

rendered them as geldings as a result of the violence, the sex, the

graphic nature of the entertainment both from the recording institution—recording industry, the movie motion picture industry, television. We have rendered them into geldings, and yet we are asking them to be fruitful. Is it any wonder that—you know, that we

market tobacco to them, and we find out that teenagers’ smoking

goes up; we market sex to them, and we find out that abortions

and sexually transmitted diseases are rampant in our kids today;

we market philandery to them, we find that divorce is at an alltime high; we market violence to them, we find them shooting their

fellow students in schools?

That should not surprise any of us, and yet it always garners

front-page headlines when these statistics come out. But the fact

is we are marketing that to them.

You know, it would have been really interesting to have as a

member of this panel here this morning to have the tobacco industry before us, because you see it is politically correct to attack the

tobacco industry, another legal entity, another legally sold product,

just like the motion picture industry, recording industry, all the entertainment industries, another legal product being marketed. But

if they were at the table, we would be hearing from people on both

sides of this dais about how bad it is that you are marketing tobacco to our children.

Well, I will tell you that I feel like some of the efforts of the entertainment industry are equally damaging to the psyche of our

kids today, and I couldn’t agree more that parents are the front

line of defense for our kids. There is no question about that. I know

that as a parent. But I will tell you that in today’s culture, the entertainment industry is a powerful influence in all of our children’s

lives. I don’t have the statistics before me, but I know they are significant in terms of the amount of—just the amount of time that

our kids spend either listening to music, watching videos, watching

TV versus the time that they spend with their parents or teachers.

The people that we want to have the most influence, just frankly,

are not getting as much face time with our kids as the entertainment industry.

It is a powerful medium, and it is also a powerful medium for

good, tremendous good. I can think of many songs that have been

influential in my life and my kids’ life and motion pictures that

have the ability to promote and sell a very positive message of love

and romance and helping your fellow man, a very powerful influence. And that is why I think that it really is incumbent upon this

industry to regulate itself. It shouldn’t be our responsibility, but I

am afraid that it is not going to be until mothers and fathers like

myself rise up and say enough is enough. We don’t need any more

studies. We know what the impact is of the violence that you sell

17

to our kids and to our society. We know that. We don’t need any

more studies.

What it is going to take, I believe, is for mothers and fathers

across this Nation to rise up and say that is enough. We don’t need

a bill passed by Congress. That is not going to affect it. What we

are going to need is mothers and fathers like myself and my wife,

my friends and neighbors to say, that is it. No more. No more.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are holding this hearing, and hopefully we can draw attention to some of the more extreme elements, in particular the recording industry, and ask for

this industry’s help, additional help, in self-regulating the products

that they are selling to our children.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

I would note for the record that the House has completed its legislative duties for the day, so I will ask that any member of either

this subcommittee or Cliff Stearns’ subcommittee, that their opening statements be made part of the record under unanimous consent.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Good Morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing regarding

the entertainment industry’s efforts to curb children’s exposure to violent content.

Over the years, Congress has tried to determine how much of an influence the

entertainment industry has had in the lives of minors. Because of the recent school

shootings and much publicized violence among youth the Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) conducted an extensive study that found that entertainment companies were

intentionally marketing adult-rated products to minors. This study reviewed several

various investigations into the impact of media violence on children, and found that

there was a high correlation between exposure to media violence and violent behavior.

Working to correct the problem, the FTC called on various branches of the entertainment industry; including motion pictures, music recording, and electronic

games, to adopt policies prohibiting these practices and working to enforce these

policies with rating systems. We have seen each of these industries adopt their own

type of model for addressing the issue warning parents and children use to determine the violent content level. Each industry has come up with a system of ratings

and guidelines to help parents and minors to have a greater understanding of what

they are purchasing.

While this is a good start, I am concerned that there are still some problems with

the way the entertainment industry has routinely targeted advertising and marketing of its violent entertainment products to minors, especially the music recording industry.

I thank the Chairman for focusing on this issue, and look forward to hearing from

our witnesses.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL LUTHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me, and I want to welcome our distinguished panel.

I want to commend the Federal Trade Commission for the excellent work it has

been doing with regard to the entertainment industry’s practice of marketing adultrated material to minors. I think I can safely say that most of us in Congress were

outraged by last year’s report revealing these marketing practices. The Commission’s April 2001 follow-up report has been equally enlightening—we can clearly

gauge the progress (or lack thereof) that the entertainment industry has made regarding its marketing practices.

I think it’s absolutely unnecessary (and wrong) for the entertainment industry to

specifically and intentionally target our youth with advertisements promoting

18

graphically sexual and violent products. I don’t really think the First Amendment

is at issue here. We are not talking about restricting the freedom of expression, but

rather we are talking about voluntary restrictions on advertising schemes. I think

the two concepts are distinct. As such, I want to applaud those industries that have

begun to make reforms in their marketing practices—with the understanding that

much more can be done. And I very much look forward to hearing why some sectors

of the entertainment industry have not begun the job of cleaning up their acts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. With that, I appreciate the testimony that our panel

has delivered.

Now we are joined on our panel by Mr. C. Lee Peeler, Associate

Director of Advertising Practices of the Federal Trade Commission;

Mr. Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Interactive Digital Software Association; Mr. Jack Valenti, President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America; Ms. Hilary Rosen, President

and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America; Mr.

Doug McMillon, Senior VP and General Merchandise Manager of

Wal-Mart; and Ms. Daphne White, Executive Director of the Lion

and the Lamb Project. Your statements will be made part of the

record in their entirety, and we ask you to limit your remarks,

opening statements, to 5 minutes.

And, Mr. Peeler, we will start with you. Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF C. LEE PEELER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF

ADVERTISING PRACTICES, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION;

DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, INTERACTIVE DIGITAL

SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION; JACK VALENTI, PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; HILARY B. ROSEN, PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; DOUG McMILLON, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE MANAGER, WALMART STORES, INC.; AND DAPHNE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE LION AND LAMB PROJECT

Mr. PEELER. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear

before you today. As the chairman and members of the committee

have underscored in their opening remarks, the subject of today’s

hearing, the marketing of violent entertainment products to children, is an important concern of America’s parents. In response to

requests from the Congress and the White House, the Federal

Trade Commission has to date conducted two studies of this issue

and is in the process of completion of a third study. My testimony

today describes the findings of our first two studies and the status

of our current review.

The Commission’s first report on the marketing of violent entertainment products to children was issued in September 2000. It examined the advertising and marketing practices of the motion picture, recording and electronic games industry. The Commission’s

study found that individual companies in each industry routinely

marketed to children the very products on which their own self-regulatory programs had placed parental warnings or ratings with age

restrictions due to their violent content. For many of these products, the Commission found evidence of marketing and media plans

that expressly targeted children under 17. In addition, companies’

marketing plans showed strategies to promote and advertise their

19

products in media outlets most likely to reach children under 17,

including advertising on television programs most popular with

teens; advertising in high school newspapers and teen-oriented

magazines; placing ads on Internet sites popular with teens; distributing posters, free passes and other giveaways at teen hangouts, such as game rooms, pizza parlors and video stores; and

showing rough cuts of R-rated films to children as young as 10 or

12 to see what in the films most appealed to them.

The September 2000 study also found that although the National

Association of Theater Owners and certain retailers had taken

steps to restrict sales of these products to children, children could

readily purchase violent entertainment products. Just over half the

movie theaters in our survey in May through July 2000 admitted

unaccompanied children ages 13 to 16 to R-rated films, and unaccompanied children ages 13 to 17 were able to buy both explicitcontent recordings and mature-rated electronic games 85 percent of

the time.

Finally, consumer surveys done for the September 2000 report

revealed high levels of parental concern about violence in movies,

music and video games. Although these surveys show that parents

highly value the existing rating and labeling systems, the surveys

also indicate that many parents believe the rating systems could do

a better job of informing them of the violent content in entertainment products.

In response to our September 2000 report, the Senate Commerce

Committee requested the FTC to prepare two additional reports. In

April 2001, the Commission issued its first follow-up report, which

is a snapshot of current practices based on a review of publicly

available advertising and marketing data. This report concluded

that the motion picture industry and the electronic game industry

had made some progress both in limiting advertising in certain

popular teen media and in providing rating information in advertising, but that more remained to be done by each industry. In contrast, the Commission found that the music recording industry had

not visibly responded to the Commission’s September 2000 report

beyond making the lyrics for recordings more readily available on

Websites.

The Senate Commerce Committee also requested the Commission

to prepare a second, significantly more comprehensive report to be

issued in the fall of 2001. The staff is currently preparing this report. The report will not only review advertising placements and

disclosure of ratings information in advertising, but will also seek

detailed information from selected industry members, including

their marketing plans. The fall report will also include the results

of a second undercover shopping survey to see if these products are

sold to children without their parents’ presence.

In conclusion, let me say that despite the concerns about the existing self-regulatory efforts, because of First Amendment issues,

the Commission continues to believe that vigilant self-regulation is

the best approach to ensuring that parents are provided with adequate information to guide their children’s exposure to entertainment media with violent content. Although the Commission was

encouraged by the motion picture and electronic games industry’s

initial responses to its 2000 report, more clearly remains to be done

20

1The views expressed in this statement represent the views of the Commission. My oral statement and responses to questions you may have are my own and are not necessarily those of

the Commission or any individual Commissioner. 2 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). 3The Commission also has responsibility under 46 additional statutes governing specific industries and practices. These include, for example, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601

et seq., which mandates disclosures of credit terms, and the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1666 et seq., which provides for the correction of billing errors on credit accounts. The Commission also enforces over 30 rules governing specific industries and practices, e.g., the Used

Car Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 455, which requires used car dealers to disclose warranty terms via

a window sticker; the Franchise Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 436, which requires the provision of information to prospective franchisees; the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310, which defines and prohibits deceptive telemarketing practices and other abusive telemarketing practices;

and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 312.

The Commission does not, however, have criminal law enforcement authority. Further, under

the FTCA, certain entities, such as banks, savings and loan associations, and common carriers,

as well as the business of insurance, are wholly or partially exempt from Commission jurisdicby each industry to ensure that its marketing and advertising do

not undermine the cautionary messages in their ratings and labels.

The Commission greatly appreciates both the interest and support these studies have received from the U.S. Congress and the

opportunity to provide the Congress with the information necessary

for its oversight of this important issue. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of C. Lee Peeler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. LEE PEELER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADVER- TISING PRACTICES, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS- SION

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, I am Lee Peeler, Associate Director of the Division of Advertising

Practices of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Commission’s reports on the marketing of

violent entertainment products to children by the motion picture, music recording,

and electronic games industries.1 The Commission issued its first report last September and a follow-up report this past April. The September report answered two

questions: Do the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries

promote products that they themselves acknowledge warrant parental caution in

venues where children make up a substantial percentage of the audience? And, are

these advertisements intended to attract children and teenagers? After a comprehensive 15-month study, the Commission found that the answers to both questions were plainly ‘‘yes.’’ The April Report was narrower. It looked at whether the entertainment media

companies were continuing to advertise violent entertainment products in popular

teen media, and whether the advertisements contained rating information. The

Commission found that the movie and elecronic games industries had made some

progress on both fronts, but that the music recording industry had made no visible

response to the September Report. The Commission urged the industries to make

a greater effort to meet the suggestions for improvement outlined in its September

Report as well as the industries’ own promises for reform.

All three industries studied have self-regulatory systems that purport to rate or

label their products to help parents make choices about their children’s entertainment. Notwithstanding, the Commission concluded in its September Report that

members of each industry routinely targeted advertising and marketing for violent

entertainment products directly to children. The Commission believes that such advertising and marketing efforts undermine each industry’s parental advisories and

frustrate parents’ attempts to protect their children from inappropriate material.

II. BACKGROUND

The Federal Trade Commission is the federal government’s principal consumer

protection agency. Congress has directed the Commission, under the FTC Act, to

take action against ‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices’’ in almost all sectors of

the economy and to promote vigorous competition in the marketplace.2 With the exception of certain industries and activities, the FTC Act provides the Commission

with broad investigative and law enforcement authority over entities engaged in, or

whose business affects, commerce.3 The FTC Act also authorizes the Commission to

21

tion. See Section 5(a)(2) and (6)a of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2) and 46(a). See also The

McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b). 4 15 U.S.C. §§ 46(b) and (f). Section 46(f) of the FTC Act provides that ‘‘the Commission shall

also have the power . . . to make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it hereunder as are in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports

to Congress...’’ 5See Letter from William J. Clinton, President of the United States, to Janet Reno, Attorney

General of the United States, and Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission (June

1, 1999) (on file with the Commission). 6Legislation calling for the FTC and the Justice Department to conduct such a study was introduced in both houses of Congress following the Columbine incident. See Amendment No. 329

by Senator Brownback et al. to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, S. 254, 106th Cong. § 511 (1999); H.R. 2157, 106th Cong. (1999); 145

Cong. Rec. S5171 (1999). In May 1999, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation conducted hearings on the marketing of violent entertainment media to children.

See Marketing Violence to Children: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science,

and Transp., 106th Cong. (1999), www.senate.gov/∼commerce/hearings/hearin99.htm (visited

July 30, 2000). Based on those hearings, in September 1999, the Majority Staff of the Senate

Committee on the Judiciary issued a committee report on this issue. See Majority Staff of the

Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong., Report on Children, Violence, and the Media: A

Report for Parents and Policy Makers (Comm. Print. 1999), www.senate.gov/∼judiciary/

mediavio.htm (visited July 31, 2000). 7The Justice Department provided the FTC with substantial funding and technical assistance

to enable the FTC to collect and analyze public and non-public information about the industries’

advertising and marketing policies and procedures, and to prepare this written report and appendices. The analysis and conclusions contained in the Report are those of the FTC. 8The Commission received information from about 50 individual companies, as well as the

Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Association of Theatre Owners

(NATO), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM), the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), the Video

Software Dealers Association (VSDA), the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the

Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA), the Software and Information Industry Association

(SIIA), the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA), and the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA). 9 In addition to industry sources, the Commission received information from a wide range of

consumer, medical, and advocacy organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American

Psychological Association, Center on Media Education, Center on Media and Public Affairs, Children Now, Commercial Alert, Lion and Lamb Project, Mediascope, National Institute on Media

and the Family, National PTA, and Parents’ Music Resource Center were among the organizations that provided information to the Commission. 10See Appendix E (Entertainment Industry Information Requests) of the Commission’s September 2000 Report. 11See Appendix F (Mystery Shopper Survey and Parent-Child Survey) of the Commission’s

September 2000 Report.

conduct studies and collect information, and, in the public interest, to publish reports on the information it obtains.4

On June 1, 1999, following the horrifying shooting incident at Columbine High

School in Littleton, Colorado, then-President Clinton requested that the Federal

Trade Commission and the Department of Justice conduct a study of whether violent entertainment material was being advertised and promoted to children and

teenagers.5 The request paralleled congressional proposals for such a study.6 Revelations that the teen-aged shooters at Columbine High School had been infatuated

with extremely violent movies, music, and video games reinvigorated public debate

about the effects of violent entertainment media on youth.

III. THE COMMISSION’S STUDY

A. Scope of the Study

In response to the request, the Commission, with financial assistance from the

Justice Department, collected information from the motion picture, music recording,

and electronic game industries regarding their self-regulatory systems and marketing practices.7 The Commission requested information from the principal industry trade associations, as well as the major motion picture studios, the music recording companies, and electronic game companies.8 In addition, the Commission contacted interested government agencies, medical associations, academics, and parent

and consumer advocacy groups.9 We reviewed information collected from consumers

through various surveys and polls, and also designed and conducted our own surveys for this study.10 Specifically, we surveyed parents and children regarding their

understanding and use of the rating and labeling systems, and how they made purchase decisions for these entertainment products.11 We also conducted an undercover survey of retail stores and movie theaters to see if unaccompanied children

under 17 could purchase or gain access to products labeled as inappropriate or warVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
22

12 Id.

ranting parental guidance.12 Finally, we reviewed Internet sites to study how they

are used to market and provide direct access to these products.

B. The Entertainment Media Industry Self-Regulatory Systems

The entertainment industries have recognized the public’s concern about children’s exposure to violent entertainment and have taken steps to alert parents to

violent or explicit content through self-regulatory product rating or labeling programs. Each of these programs addresses violence, as well as sexual content, language, drug use and other content that may be of concern to parents.

The motion picture industry uses a rating board to rate virtually all movies released in the United States, requires the age-related rating to appear in advertising,

and makes some effort to review ads for rated movies to ensure that their content

is suitable for general audiences. The music recording industry recommends the use

of a general parental advisory label on music with ‘‘explicit content.’’ The artist and

the music publishing company decide whether to place a parental advisory label on

a recording and there is no independent third-party review; nor does the industry

provide for any review of marketing and advertising. The electronic game industry

uses a rating board to assign an age- and content-based rating, and requires that

game packages bear the rating and that the rating information appear in advertising. It also is the only industry that has adopted a rule prohibiting its marketers

from targeting advertising for games to children below the age designations indicated by the rating.

IV. THE FINDINGS OF THE SEPTEMBER 2000 REPORT

The Commission carefully examined the structure of these rating and labeling

systems, and studied how these self-regulatory programs work in practice. We focused on the marketing of products designated as violent under these systems. We

did not examine the content itself, but accepted each industry’s determination of

whether a particular product contained violent content.

The Commission found that despite the variations in the three industries’ systems, the outcome was consistent: individual companies in each industry routinely

marketed to children the very products that have industries’ self-imposed parental

warnings or ratings with age restrictions due to violent content. Indeed, for many

of these products, the Commission found evidence of marketing and media plans

that expressly targeted children under 17. In addition, the companies’ marketing

and media plans showed strategies to promote and advertise their products in the

media outlets most likely to reach children under 17. These documents showed

plans to advertise these products on television programs ranked as the ‘‘most popular’’ with the under-17 age group, such as Xena: Warrior Princess, The Simpsons,

WWF Smackdown, and MTV’s Total Request Live; in magazines and on Internet

sites with a majority or substantial (i.e., over 35 percent) under-17 audience, such

as Game Pro, Seventeen and Right On!, as well as mtv.com, ubl.com and

happypuppy.com; and in teen hangouts, such as game rooms, pizza parlors, and

sporting apparel stores.

Movies. Of the 44 movies rated R for violence the Commission selected for its

study, the Commission found that 80 percent were targeted to children under 17.

Marketing plans for 64 percent contained express statements that the film’s target

audience included children under 17. Though the marketing plans for the remaining

seven R-rated films did not expressly identify an under-17 target audience, they led

the Commission to conclude that the companies nonetheless targeted children under

17. That is, the plans either were extremely similar to the plans of the films that

did identify an under-17 target audience, or detailed actions synonymous with targeting that age group, such as promoting the film in high schools or in publications

with majority under-17 audiences.

Music. The Commission found that all 55 of the explicit content-labeled music recordings studied were targeted to children under 17. The marketing plans for 27

percent expressly identified teenagers as part of their target audience. The marketing documents for the remaining recordings did not expressly state the age of

the target audience, but they detailed the same methods of marketing as the plans

that specifically identified teens as part of their target audience, including placing

advertising in media that would reach a majority or substantial percentage of children under 17.

Games. Seventy percent of the 118 electronic games with a Mature rating for violence the Commission examined targeted children under 17. The marketing plans

for 51 percent of these expressly included children under 17 in their target audiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
23

13The Commission’s support for enhanced industry self-regulation in the advertising context

is motivated in part by our strong belief in the benefits of self-regulation, and in part by our

concern that government regulation of advertising and marketing—especially if it involves content-based restrictions—may raise First Amendment issues. The First Amendment issues that

have been raised in the context of restricting or limiting advertisements for media products are

identified in Appendix C of the Commission’s September 2000 Report (First Amendment Issues

in Public Debate Over Governmental Regulation of Entertainment Media Products with Violent

Content).

ence. Documents for the remaining games showed plans to advertise in magazines

or on television shows with a majority or substantial under-17 audience.

Further, although the National Association of Theatre Owners and some retailers

had policies limiting the sale of rated or labeled products even before the Commission’s study, most retailers made little effort to restrict children’s access to products

containing violence. Surveys conducted for the Commission in May through July

2000 found that just over half the movie theaters admitted children ages 13 to 16

to R-rated films even when not accompanied by an adult. The Commission’s surveys

of young people indicated that, even when theaters refuse to sell tickets to unaccompanied children, they have various strategies to see R-rated movies. The Commission’s surveys also showed that unaccompanied children ages 13 to 16 were able to

buy both explicit content recordings and Mature-rated electronic games 85 percent

of the time.

Although consumer surveys show that parents value the existing rating and labeling systems, they also show that parents’ use and understanding of the systems

vary. The surveys also consistently reveal high levels of parental concern about violence in the movies, music, and video games their children see, listen to, and play.

These concerns can only be heightened by the extraordinary degree to which young

people today are immersed in entertainment media, as well as by recent technological advances such as realistic and interactive video games. The survey responses

indicate that many parents believe the rating systems could do a better job of informing them of the violent content in entertainment products.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF THE SEPTEMBER 2000 REPORT

The findings summarized above led the Commission to recommend that all three

industries enhance their self-regulatory efforts.13 The Commission suggested that

the industries:

1. Establish or expand codes that prohibit target marketing to children and impose

sanctions for noncompliance. All three industries should improve the usefulness of

their ratings and labels by establishing codes that prohibit marketing R-rated/Mrated/explicit-labeled products in media or venues with a substantial under-17 audience. In addition, the Commission suggested that each industry’s trade associations

monitor and encourage their members’ compliance with these policies and impose

meaningful sanctions for non-compliance.

2. Increase compliance at the retail level. Restricting children’s retail access to entertainment containing violent content is an essential complement to restricting the

placement of advertising. This can be done by checking identification or requiring

parental permission before selling tickets to R movies, and by not selling or renting

products labeled ‘‘Explicit’’ or rated R or M, to children.

3. Increase parental understanding of the ratings and labels. For parents to make

informed choices about their children’s entertainment, they must understand the

ratings and the labels, as well as the reasons for them. That means all the industries should include the reasons for the rating or the label in advertising and product packaging and continue their efforts to educate parents—and children—about

the meanings of the ratings and descriptors. Industry should also take steps to better educate parents about the ratings and labels.

VI. FINDINGS OF THE APRIL 2001 FOLLOW-UP REPORT

In January 2001, the Senate Commerce Committee requested that the Commission prepare two reports following up on its September 2000 Report, to be issued

in the Spring and Fall of 2001. The Committee asked the Commission to focus its

review on two of the issues examined in the September 2000 Report: 1) whether the

entertainment media industries continue to advertise violent R-rated movies, explicit-content labeled music, and M-rated electronic games in popular teen media,

and 2) whether the entertainment media are including rating information in their

advertising. In April 2001, the Commission issued its first follow-up report.

The Commission’s review indicated that the entertainment media industry had

made some progress both in limiting advertising in certain popular teen media and

in providing rating information in advertising but that more remained to be done.

24

14The April Report provided a snapshot of advertising practices by some industry members

a few months after publication of the Commission’s September 2000 Report. Thus, it cannot be

statistically projected to industry advertising as a whole. In addition, because it relied on advertising monitoring rather than internal industry documents, its results cannot be directly compared to the results of the review conducted for the September 2000 Report. Also, the review

did not include information on children’s access to these products at the retail level.

Movies. The Commission found that the motion picture industry had made some

positive changes to its advertising practices. Specifically, the Commission found virtually no advertisements for R-rated movies in the popular teen magazines reviewed. A spot-check of movie trailer placement revealed general compliance with

the industry’s commitment not to run trailers for R movies in connection with Gand PG-rated feature films. The motion picture studios now routinely include reasons for ratings in their print and television advertisements. Further, at least threequarters of the official movie Web sites reviewed included the film’s rating, the reasons for the rating, and links to sites where information on the rating system may

be obtained. However, ads for R-rated movies still appeared on the television programs most popular with teens, and the rating reasons in ads were usually small,

fleeting, or inconspicuously placed.

Games. The Commission’s Spring 2001 review showed some improvement in the

electronic game industry’s advertising practices. The Commission found no ads for

M-rated games on the popular teen television programs reviewed. The game company print ads, with only one exception, always included the game’s rating icon and,

in nearly all instances, content descriptors. Television ads gave both audio and video

disclosures of the game’s rating, and more than 80 percent of the official game publisher Web sites displayed the game’s rating. However, the electronic game industry

had not stopped placing ads for M-rated games in magazines with a substantial

under-17 audience. The Commission also found that rating icons and descriptors in

the print ads, while readable, were often smaller than required by the industry

code; television ads never included the content descriptors; only a little more than

half the Web sites reviewed displayed the rating clearly and conspicuously; and just

25 percent displayed the content descriptors anywhere on the site.

Music. The Commission found that the music recording industry, unlike the motion picture and electronic game industries, had not visibly responded to the Commission’s September 2000 Report; nor had it implemented the reforms its trade association announced just before the Commission issued that Report. The Commission’s review showed that advertising for explicit-content labeled music recordings

routinely appeared on popular teen television programming. All five major recording

companies placed advertising for explicit content music on television programs and

in magazines with substantial under-17 audiences. Furthermore, ads for explicitcontent labeled music usually did not indicate that the recording was stickered with

a parental advisory label. Even when the parental advisory label was present, it frequently was so small that the words were illegible, and the ads never indicated why

the album received the label. None of the recording company/artist Web sites the

Commission reviewed linked to an educational Web site for information on the labeling system. The single positive note was that almost 40 percent of the Web sites

included the music’s lyrics, a step that can help parents screen recordings.14

VII. THE COMMISSION’S CURRENT STUDY

The Senate Commerce Committee requested a second, more comprehensive, report

to be issued in the Fall of 2001, which the Commission staff is currently preparing.

In addition to reviewing advertising placement in popular teen media and checking

ads in all media to see if they include clear and prominent rating information, the

Commission is also seeking detailed information from individual industry members,

including marketing plans for R-rated movies, explicit-content labeled music, and Mrated games released since the Commission issued its report last September. It will

include the results of an undercover shopping survey to see if these products are

sold to children without their parents present. The Fall 2001 report will also discuss

industry compliance with commitments made following the September 2000 Report.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Because of First Amendment issues, the Commission continues to believe that

vigilant self-regulation is the best approach to ensuring that parents are provided

with adequate information to guide their children’s exposure to entertainment

media with violent content. The Commission is encouraged by the motion picture

and electronic game industries’ initial responses to its September 2000 Report, but

25

it is disappointed by the almost complete failure of the music recording industry to

institute any positive reforms.

More remains to be done by each industry. To avoid undermining the cautionary

message in their ratings and labels, the industries should avoid advertising their

products in the media most watched and read by children under 17. The challenge

remains to make rating explanations as ubiquitous in advertisements as the rating

itself and to present this important information clearly and conspicuously. The Commission urges individual industry members both to keep the industry’s own commitments and to go beyond those commitments to meet the recommendations the Commission made in its September 2000 Report.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Lowenstein.

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. I hope I can be as good on the clock as Mr.

Peeler. He hit 5 minutes on the mark.

Mr. UPTON. It is practice. He has been here before.

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. Thank you very much for having me here

today. The video game industry has taken some extraordinary and

I think unique steps to ensure that mature-rated titles are marketed responsibly and authorize sanctions against companies that

violate our extensive advertising guidelines.

I want to start, though, before getting into some of the details

of that, by dispelling the myth that most gamers are kids. In truth,

145,000,000 Americans play video games and their average is not

12, it is not 14, it is not 16. It is 28 years old. Sixty-one percent

of all game players are over 18, 35 percent are over 35 years old,

and 43 percent of them are women.

In short, we serve a mass market made up of players of all ages

and all tastes, and their interests in the types of games they want

to play range from sports games to puzzle games to games based

on TV shows to racing games and action and adventure games,

some of which have, in fact, violent content.

But an important point to understand is that most games do not,

in fact, contain violent content. Seventy percent are rated as appropriate for everyone ages 6 and up by a rating system that even industry critics have acknowledged is very reliable and credible. Last

year, only 117 of the 1,600 games released were rated mature for

users due to violence. And I might note that the best-seller lists

also reflect the fact that most games that are popular don’t have

violent content. Only two of the top 20 best-sellers this year, for example, are rated as mature.

This brings me to the issue of kids and mature-rated games. The

fact is that the FTC’s own survey confirms that parents are almost

always involved in buying the games their kids play. In quoting

from the FTC’s first report, ‘‘it is clear that most parents are able

to play a watchdog role when they choose to do so.’’ According to

parents’ responses to the FTC survey, 83 percent are involved in

the actual purchase transaction. FTC also found out, when we talk

about parental responsibility, that in 49 percent of the cases where

parents are aware of the rating system, they opt not to use it.

So, again, I think those are important points to bear in mind.

For over 7 years, the video game industry now has been committed to effective self-regulation. We created the highly praised

Entertainment Software Rating Board. We have implemented a

sweeping advertising code of conduct. We have distributed and proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
26

1 IDSA’s members only publish software for the home. The arcade game business is a different

sector with its own representatives.

duced PSAs featuring Tiger Woods, for example. This is an example of that advertising and public service announcements. We have

distributed ratings brochures to retailers of this sort. In fact, Attorney General Granholm of Michigan, I believe, has distributed over

100,000 of these brochures to consumers in her State. We have

worked with retailers to prevent the sale of mature-rated games to

minors. And that is just a partial list.

Let me now quickly turn to the FTC report. We certainly appreciated some of the complimentary remarks that the agency had

made in both of those reports. And I want to say that the finding,

for example, in the first report that some game company marketing

plans aimed mature-rated product to 12-year-olds is completely and

totally indefensible, and it is one reason why we moved soon after

that to look at ways to strengthen the system we have in place.

In March of this year, we completed a process that we began 9

months ago in which our board took the extraordinary step of, having always restricted our advertising to audiences for whom the

games were not rated as appropriate, we beefed that up dramatically by adopting explicit guidelines governing the marketing of

mature-rated games to persons under 17 years old, including a ban

on advertising those games in magazines, where 45 percent or

more of the readers are under 17, and on television programs,

where 35 percent or more of the viewers are under 17.

But equally significant, we created a unique monitoring and enforcement capability within our autonomous ratings board and authorized the imposition of monetary and other sanctions for companies that violate these marketing and advertising guidelines.

Now I know of no other industry—we have heard the tobacco industry mentioned here today, but I know of no other industry that

has adopted such far-reaching guidelines and coupled them with

actual enforcement sanctions against companies that violate those

guidelines. We have not been perfect as an industry. I will be the

first to admit that. And we do have a responsibility to educate consumers and we need to take that responsibility seriously, and we

have done so. We have put out volumes of information about the

ESRB ratings. We have empowered consumers to make informed

choices. And the FTC and others acknowledge that parents are, in

fact, in a position to control the games that come to their home.

But at some point the responsibility of parents really kicks in, because I submit to you that there is no law that Congress can come

up with that can mandate sound and responsible parenting.

We have lots of problems with youth violence in this country, but

I think we are doing our part to address them.

[The prepared statement of Douglas Lowenstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, INTERACTIVE DIGITAL

SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today on the interactive

entertainment industry’s response to last year’s Federal Trade Commission report

on entertainment industry marketing practices, and its follow up report this past

Spring. I am testifying today on behalf of the Interactive Digital Software Association 1 the trade body representing U.S. video and computer game software companies. Our members publish games for use in the home. In 2000, the industry genVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
27

erated $6 billion in retail software sales. Analysts forecast that industry sales will

reach $10-15 billion in the United States alone within the next five years. Of special

interest to this Subcommittee is the fact that 40 million Americans play games on

the Internet today, interactive entertainment sites were the fastest growing sites on

the Web in 2000, and in March 2001, roughly one-half of all US Internet users spent

time playing games.

I would like to divide my testimony into three sections: first, a discussion offering

some critical and important background about our industry, our markets, and our

products; second, a review of self regulatory initiatives we have taken over the years

to ensure the responsible labeling and marketing of video and computer games to

consumers and; third, a review of actions taken since the FTC reports.

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND

Majority of Game Players are Adults, not Kids

I’d like to start by addressing two of the great myths about the video game industry. First, the myth that video games are played predominantly by teenage boys.

This is wrong.

In fact, the primary audience for video games is NOT adolescent boys. According

to research by Peter Hart last year, 145 million Americans say they play computer

and video games, and their average age is 28 years old; 61 percent of all game players are over 18, 35% are over 35 years old, and 13% are over 50; 43% of those who

play computer and video games are women.

70% Of Games Appropriate for Everyone; only 9% Are Rated Mature

Second, let me dispel the myth that most video games are rated Mature and have

significant levels of violence. Again, this is inaccurate. With the demographics of the

industry changing rapidly, so too has the type and mix of products published by

game companies. Contrary to popular perceptions, most games do not contain significant levels of violence. In fact, the video game rating system the industry voluntarily set up six years ago, and which has been widely praised (the FTC called it

‘‘the most comprehensive’’ of any of the systems it studied), has rated nearly 8,500

titles of which only 9% carry a Mature rating indicating significant violent content.

Seventy percent are rated for Everyone over six. In 2000, only 117 out of over 1,600

titles released were Mature games, and these represented just 9% of total sales.

Not only are most games appropriate for everyone, but also most of the best sellers are not violent. For example, in the last six months, the top selling games have

been the Sims, Pokemon, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and racing and sports games. In

2000, only two of the top selling PC and video games year were rated M, and 16

were rated Everyone. So far through June 2001, only two of the top selling computer

and video games are rated mature, compared to twelve that are rated ‘‘E’’ and six

that are rated ‘‘T’’.

What all this reflects is the fact that video games are now mass market entertainment and the range and diversity of products has widened, resulting in a substantial market for casual games like puzzle, board, and card games, and hunting and

fishing titles, in addition to staples like racing, football, and action games.

In short, this industry has seen its sales double since 1995 and the bulk of that

growth has been fueled by consumers over the age of 18 and by games whose content has broad appeal.

Parents and Adults, not Kids. Actually Purchase at least Eight out of Ten Games

One last critical point of context: unlike other entertainment products, most newly

released video games cost anywhere from $40-60. Thus, it’s not surprising then,

when you add this to the fact that a majority of consumers are adults that IDSA

research finds that nine out of every ten video games are actually purchased by

someone over 18. Furthermore, 83% of the kids who do buy games say they have

the permission of their parents to do so. Similarly, in a survey completed by Peter

Hart last Fall, 83% of parents said they ‘‘try to watch or play at least once every

game that their child plays to determine whether it is appropriate.’’

Notably, the FTC’s own survey confirms these findings. ‘‘It is clear that most parents are able to play a watchdog role when they choose to do so... According to parents’ responses, [83%] are involved in the actual purchase transaction; 38% report

that they usually purchase or rent the games, and another 45% of parents do so

together with the child.’’

So any discussion of how our industry markets its products must bear in mind

the fact that a majority of those who buy and use our products are adults, not kids,

so parents are still almost certainly going to be involved in the actual purchase. As

the FTC said,

28

‘‘This level of parental involvement, either at the point of selection or purchase, means that most parents have the opportunity to review rating information or to check the product packaging to determine whether they approve of

the game’s content.’’ Put another way: if a child has a game that’s not appropriate for him or her,

chances are that Mom or Dad is the one who bought it.

This does not mean our industry does not have an obligation to market products

responsibly and to label them accurately. But it does mean that parents are the

first, last, and best line of defense against products that are not appropriate for

their children.

COMMITMENT TO EFFECTIVE SELF-REGULATION

The video and PC game industry has been committed to effective self-regulation

since the formation of the IDSA in 1994. We have consistently and continuously

sought to respond to concerns about the small number of our products that contain

significant violence, balancing our absolute commitment to creative freedom with

our commitment to empowering consumers to make informed choices. We are guided

by our belief that the ultimate responsibility for controlling the games that come

into the home lies with parents, not industry, not Congress, and not federal or state

governments. According to the FTC, 45% of parents who are aware of the video

game rating system say they do not use it. I submit to you that no one has yet conceived of a law that can mandate sound parenting.

Initiatives on Game Ratings

In 1995, the IDSA created the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB,

which uses teams of independent, demographically diverse raters to review each and

every video game. ESRB issues ratings suggesting—and that is a key word—suggesting, but not dictating—the age appropriateness of a title. In addition, ESRB ratings provide simple but clear information about the content that influenced the rating, such as violence, strong language, or suggestive themes. The philosophy underpinning the ESRB system is to give parents the tools to make informed choices, but

not to attempt to dictate to them what is right for their families. At the same time

the ESRB was created, IDSA voluntarily created an Advertising Code of Conduct

requiring that the ratings and content information issued by ESRB be placed on

packaging and in advertising. The Ad Code also contained a provision advising

‘‘companies must not specifically target advertising for entertainment software products rated for Teen, Mature, or Adults Only to consumers for whom the product is

not rated as appropriate.’’

In 1997, recognizing the emergence of the Internet, the ESRB launched a new rating service called ESRB Interactive, or ESRBi. Through this service, ESRB offers

companies the opportunity to rate their websites and video games distributed on

line. More and more companies are now rating online games and game websites

with ESRBi.

ESRB Ratings are Accurate and Reliable

We are confident that people from all quarters regard the ESRB ratings as helpful

and reliable. In this regard, Peter D Hart Research Associates completed a new survey in July 2000 seeking to gauge whether consumers themselves believe that ESRB

ratings are accurate. The research involved mall-intercept interviews with 410

adults nationwide, including 246 parents who were shown videotapes of game clips

and asked to rate them based on the ESRB standards. The survey found that ‘‘in

84% of all instances, games are rated equal to or less strictly than the official ESRB

rating.’’ Hart found that the ESRB is ‘‘twice as likely to be more conservative than

the public’’ in rating decisions. With respect to the content descriptors, the survey

found ‘‘participants are generally in agreement with the ESRB on violence

descriptors, and in instances in which there is disagreement, they are usually less

strict than the ratings board.’’ In short, the ESRB ratings are reliable and effective.

No rating system will ever generate 100% agreement since everyone brings their

own biases to the process. But we think the level of concurrence registered by consumers for the ESRB is extremely impressive. And the FTC noted last September

that the independent rating system used by the video game industry ‘‘appears to

be helpful to those parents who actually use it’’ and that a majority of these parents

say it does an excellent or good job in advising them on the levels of violence in

our products.

Consumer and Retailer Education and Enforcement

Starting in 1995, the ESRB maintained an active program to provide information

on the ESRB to retailers and consumers. It established a toll free number which

29

has logged millions of calls since its inception, created a multi lingual web site

where consumers can get information on the age and content rating of over 8,000

video games, and distributed millions of Parent Guides to ESRB Ratings to retailers

and advocacy throughout the country, as well as to local government officials upon

request, including Attorney General Ryan of Illinois and Attorney General

Granholm of Michigan. In fact, AG Granholm has distributed nearly 100,000 ESRB

educational brochures across the state, with the active support of the ESRB.

Tiger Woods PSA

In the Fall of 1999, ESRB launched an extraordinary campaign to raise awareness and use of its ratings, with the centerpiece being a PSA featuring Tiger Woods

urging parents to ‘‘Check the Rating’’ of games they buy; ESRB purchased advertising in major national publications with significant parent readership, such as

Good Housekeeping, Parenting, and Newsweek. ESRB placed pull-out flyers in

major parent-oriented publications, such as Child Magazine, it redesigned its consumer brochures and distributed millions to leading retailers, and it reached out to

leading national grassroots organizations with ties to schools and parents, such as

Mothers Against Violence in America and the PTA seeking ways to partner with

them to get the word out to consumers, especially parents, about ESRB ratings and

how to use them.

Initiatives on Retail Enforcement

The IDSA has been proactive on the issue of retail enforcement long before the

FTC or members of Congress expressed interest in the subject. The IDSA sent letters to major national retailers asking them to make a commitment to consumers

to use their best efforts not to sell Mature rated games to persons under 17, a step

we had also taken in October 1998. To date, Toys ‘‘R’’ Us, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Target, Circuit City, Staples, and CompUSA have all adopted policies restricting the

sale of video games to persons under 17. IDSA supports those efforts.

But we must note that we’ve supported these efforts even though the Mature rating itself does not say that a title is not appropriate for a person under 17; rather,

the rating says that the content ‘‘may not be suitable’’ for a person under 17. There

is a material difference. The M rating is a point of information and guidance for

consumers, and is not an absolute statement on what is or is not appropriate for

a particular child. We believe that this decision is one best left to parents who, the

FTC itself acknowledges, are usually involved in buying or renting the games their

kids use. A final point on retailers: we recognize and respect the fact that the ultimate decision on what policies to adopt in stores properly lies with the individual

retailers who are the best judge of the relationship they want with their own customers.

Initiatives on Advertising and Marketing

In September 1999, the IDSA Board took the extraordinary and far reaching step

of asking the ESRB to create a new Advertising Review Council (ARC) within the

ESRB. The ARC is empowered to ensure that all advertisements by those who use

ESRB ratings adhere to strict content standards covering such areas as violence,

sex, and language, and to enforce compliance with all other provisions of the industry ad code, including the anti targeting provision. In addition, the IDSA shifted responsibility for the ad code and its enforcement from the association to the new

ESRB ad council, and provided a major increase in resources to support expanded

staffing and more aggressive monitoring and enforcement of advertising standards.

This initiative was undertaken long before the FTC report was completed, and reflected our own judgment that our industry needed to revamp and step up our approach to monitoring and enforcing our advertising standards.

THE FTC REPORTS

We appreciate the fact that the September 2000 FTC described our industry’s

overall self-regulatory program as ‘‘the most comprehensive of the three industry

systems studied by the Commission’’ and that it recognized that ‘‘it is widely used

by industry members and has been revised repeatedly to address new challenges,

developments, and concerns regarding the practices of our members.’’ The FTC also

pointed out that, quite the opposite of standing by idly, we have been aggressive

in seeking compliance with our standards. As it put it, ‘‘to its credit, the IDSA has

taken several steps to encourage industry members to comply with the industry’s

various ratings and advertising requirements.’’

We were extremely pleased that the FTC report released in April 2001 acknowledged the many positive steps we’ve taken since the original report to address legitiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
30

mate concerns about industry marketing practices, though candidly, we think it understated the importance and scope of the actions we’ve taken.

IDSA Actions Since The December, 2000 FTC Report

Advertising Guidelines: First and foremost, we have taken extraordinary additional steps to enhance our marketing and advertising code. Our ad code always

contained a general restriction on advertising titles to audiences for whom the game

may not be appropriate. But soon after the report was released, the IDSA convened

a task force of industry marketing executives to explore how to respond to the FTC

findings.

On March 14, 2001, the IDSA Board of Directors adopted a series of explicit

guidelines to govern the marketing of Mature rated games to persons under 17

years old. Among other things, these guidelines prohibit the marketing of M rated

games in magazines where 45% or more of the readers are under 17 and on TV

shows where 35% or more of the viewers are under 17.

We believe the adoption of these guidelines is unprecedented. We know of no

other industry in the entertainment or other fields, which has issued such explicit

guidelines to restrict marketing of a product which is entirely legal to sell to persons

under 17, and which has coupled such guidelines with a self regulatory body with

the power to enforce compliance and punish violations of them.

Our Board’s decision to adopt these guidelines was a difficult one. As I said earlier, there is nothing in the ESRB rating system that even defines a Mature-rated

product as one that is inappropriate for persons under 17. The ESRB rating is a

guide for parents; it is not intended to be a means to restrain the sale or distribution of Mature-rated video games. Moreover, unlike other products whose marketing

may be restricted as a matter of law, it is entirely legal to advertise and sell Mrated video games to persons of any age. Thus, our members wrestled with the notion of adopting voluntary guidelines that could limit their rights to freely advertise

their games. In the end, we believe the guidelines adopted appropriately and aggressively address concerns about target marketing.

Establishing limits on Mature-rated game advertising in game publications was

an especially difficult issue. But we took this step anyway. For many game publishers, advertising in these publications is the primary, most efficient, and cost effective way to reach their core adult gamer audience. Unlike other entertainment

industries which are more dependent on mass media advertising, and who capitalize

on free advertising outlets like music videos, radio, and TV film review and entertainment shows, our industry is dependent on this specialty press. Thus, reasonable

limits on advertising Mature-rated titles in game publications must be carefully balanced with preserving the right and ability of companies to effectively reach their

target consumers. In adopting these guidelines, we were sensitive to our fundamental obligation as a content industry protected by the First Amendment to adopt

guidelines that ensure that Mature-rated products are marketed appropriately, but

do not have the practical effect of chilling the creative process or controlling the

types of products brought to market.

In addition to promulgating the guidelines, we have also taken the extraordinary

and unprecedented step of strengthening our existing enforcement system to sanction violators of the industry guidelines. Under this new enforcement system, ESRB

is empowered to take a wide range of steps against ad code violators, including levying fines, and in extreme cases, actually withholding a rating, which would be commercially crippling for any software publisher.

I am proud to say that not even the tobacco and alcohol industries, whose products cannot be legally sold or marketed to persons under 18, have gone as far as

our industry in adopting meaningful marketing guidelines restricting marketing to

minors, and giving them teeth through a comprehensive enforcement regime.

Education: IDSA has continued its efforts to broaden awareness of the rating

system through outreach to major medical organizations. In January, we sent letters to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American

Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of

Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association asking them to ‘‘work with us’’ to

expand ESRB educational efforts. To date, and to our disappointment, none of these

groups have responded affirmatively.

Derek Jeter PSA: This Spring, the ESRB released a new PSA featuring New

York Yankees’ All-Star Derek Jeter urging parents to ‘‘check the ratings’’ before

they buy video and computer games. This PSA is airing in retailers around the

country, and on more than 50 television stations—including cable and broadcast

outlets—it has generated nearly ten million audience impressions so far.

31

ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

It’s easy to lose sight of the fact, in all the rhetoric, that video games are legal

products for people of all ages, that they are constitutionally protected products, and

that at best, the scientific evidence linking them to harmful effects is weak and ambiguous and at worst does not exist. Indeed, that’s exactly what The Government

of Australia concluded in December 1999 after an exhaustive evaluation of all the

available research on violent video games.

The Australian Government report concluded: ‘‘After examining several attempts

to find effects of aggressive content in either experimental studies or field studies,

at best only weak and ambiguous evidence has emerged. Importantly, these studies

have employed current games or concerned contemporary young players who presumably have access to the latest games. The accumulating evidence—provided

largely by researchers keen to demonstrate the games’ undesirable effects—does indicate that it is very hard to find such effects and that they are unlikely to be substantial.’’ It’s also what the Surgeon General of the United States found in his sweeping

examination of the causes of youth violence. Of the research on video games, Surgeon General Satcher said, ‘‘The overall effect size for both randomized and correlational studies was small for physical aggression and moderate for aggressive thinking . . .The impact of video games on violent behavior remains to be determined.’’ This conclusion itself was based on a study that several experts have said is seriously flawed methodologically and likely biased to find a link between games and

violent behavior.

I note these research findings to further dramatize the fact that our industry has

taken extraordinary and far reaching steps to address concerns about violence in

our products even though such products are a tiny fraction of overall industry offerings, even though parents are usually the ones buying games for their kids, even

though most game players are adults, and even though there is no credible evidence

that they lead to violent behavior.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, I will not tell you our industry has been perfect either in its conduct or its implementation of our own standards. I will tell you we have shown a

genuine commitment to the principle of informing consumers about the content of

our products and regulating how these products are marketed. We have proven that

with or without the FTC, our efforts to continue to enhance our self-regulatory regime is unwavering.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that we do live in a world where media

is incredibly complex, where the Internet spans the globe, where consumers, young

and old, have access to information in ways never before imagined. In this environment, it is simply not possible or realistic to create an airtight system where young

people do not hear about, or even obtain, games that are not appropriate for them.

To the extent this occurs due to industry’s conscious effort to target kids to buy M

rated products in violation of industry standards, it is not defensible. But to the extent it happens, as a result of the information and media explosion flooding over

all of us, it is unfair and unrealistic to point fingers.

We are proud of our industry’s record of producing the most advanced entertainment products available in the world today, and we are proud of our commitment

to the responsible marketing of these products. We look forward to a dialogue with

the Committee on these issues. Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Mr. Valenti, your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI

Mr. VALENTI. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. Those Members of the

House of Representatives who are in the first year of their 17th

term were just entering Congress when the film industry’s voluntary movie rating system was born. That is on November 1,

1968, 30, what—32 years and 8 months. I submit to all of you that

nothing lasts that long in this brittle, explosive, volatile marketplace unless it is providing some kind of a benefit to the people

that it aims to serve, in this case, the parents of America. Since

the inception of this rating system, 30—almost 33 years ago, it has

32

had one prime objective, and that is to give advanced cautionary

warnings to parents so that parents, as Congresswoman Harman

pointed out, can make their own decisions about what movies they

want their children to see or, following up with Congressman

Largent, movies they don’t want their children to see. That is a parental responsibility that ought to be invulnerable to all outside interference.

Now how is it doing? Since 1969, the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, has conducted nationwide polls of

2600 respondents. In September of last year, the latest poll revealed that 81 percent of parents with children under 13 found this

rating system to be very useful to fairly useful in helping them

guide their children’s movie-going. And I was very pleased to hear

Mr. Peeler speak a minute ago, because the FTC last year conducted its own independent national survey and they found that 80

percent of parents said they were, ‘‘Satisfied with the rating system.’’ Now following up to Mr. Lowenstein, are we perfect? Of course

not. Nothing made by mortal men and women is ever going to be

perfect, and we can always improve. But we are doing our darndest

to do what we said we would do, to fulfill our obligation and turn

away revenues at the box office in order to fulfill and redeem that

obligation to parents. I don’t know any other industries—maybe

the video game or others—who turn away revenues in order to redeem an obligation to parents.

Now the next question that comes up is how the rating is done.

The fact is that we are not dealing here with euclids, geometric

equations, which are always pristine and pure and clean-shaped

and final. The fact is we are dealing with subjectivity. Vexing

though it may be, social scientists, child development experts, Wall

Street analysts and movie raters, are all immersed in subjectivity.

The lines we draw are smudged. The veils we looked at are murky.

And because you are trying to say, as the Wall Street analysts, ‘‘is

the stock market going up or down?’’ nobody knows. Does a 6-yearold boy who becomes agitated by watching some aggressive material on television at the age of 20 pick up a Glock 9 and blow somebody’s head off? Nobody knows. We do the best we can to try to

give parents some guidelines and let them make the decisions.

Let me go on to the FTC report which Mr. Peeler alluded to. The

first report was issued on September 10, 2000. Within 17 days of

the issuance of that report, Motion Picture Association presented to

the Congress a 12-point set of initiatives in place today. And I must

say I think they are being complied with. Among that was that I

appointed within each of the major studios a compliance committee

and a compliance chairman whose duty it was to examine the marketing plan of every single motion picture that that company is releasing. That went into effect last October.

I’m now getting reports, written and oral, and face-to-face meetings to make sure that that monitoring goes on. I think some of the

things that the first FTC report said that the movie industry was

doing are indefensible. I wouldn’t defend it if my career and job depended on it. But that is being corrected now. And I think we are

trying to make up for some of these frailties and, I would like to

believe, inadvertent actions that took place.

33

I could go on here with my blathering, but I would be eager to

answer any questions that you have. All I can tell you is I heard

what Congressman Largent is saying and others, and I agree. I am

a parent of three children myself and cared deeply about their

growing up to become good citizens. Thank God they have. But I

do know that my wife and I, when they were younger, were absolutely stern and forbidding in the kind of movies we wanted our

children to see or the music they wanted to listen to, which I believe, as Ms. Harman pointed out, that is the duty of a parent. And

if there isn’t built within this child early in life a moral shield that

will be impenetrable to their brandishments, their peers or the

mean streaks enticements, no law, no fiery rhetoric, no Presidential

directive, no congressional legislation is going to salvage that

child’s conduct or locate some lost moral core.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Jack Valenti follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK VALENTI, CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Thank you, Chairman Upton and Congressman Markey, for giving me the opportunity to testify here today in front of your Subcommittee. Yours is a panel, I might

add, that has been involved in these issues in a balanced and careful way for many,

many years. And the panel that helped to originate the ‘‘V-chip,’’ an enormously important tool for empowering parents.

When the Federal Trade Commission’s first Report came out last fall, our industry responded seriously, responsibly and expeditiously to address the aspects of the

Report that showed where we, like any industry, could do better.

Our industry leaders recognized that there was room for improvement in some of

the marketing practices of our studios. We needed to do a better job of not inappropriately marketing certain films to children. So I immediately convened a series of

round-the-clock meetings to address the problems identified in the FTC’s first Report. I am pleased to tell you that just three weeks after the release of that Report,

we announced a 12-point set of initiatives that every major film studio has pledged

to follow.

The plan requires, among other things, that our companies appoint senior compliance officers to monitor each studio’s marketing practices, furnish each newspaper

with the reasons for the ratings of each of their films and not show R-rated trailers

in connection with G-rated films.

Also as part of the plan, MPAA established and expanded web sites that provide

parents with general information about the ratings system and the specific places

where they can obtain ratings information about every film recently in release (for

example ‘‘filmratings.com’’ and ‘‘parentalguide.org’’). Not only will parents find a

film’s rating here, but also the reasons why a movie received a particular rating.

I should note that this is information that we have long provided to film critics and

others, and encouraged them to use in their reviews of new movies. But we took

it a step further and put this information online (and in advertisements) so that any

parent will be able to find it. Mr. Chairman, a copy of the complete 12-point set

of MPAA initiatives is attached to my remarks. These Initiatives are in place and

working. Our Compliance Committees are functioning as we pledged they would.

Seven months later, when the FTC released its second Report in April, it became

clear that we were honoring our commitments. The Commission acknowledged that

the ‘‘motion picture... industr[y] [has] taken a number of significant steps to limit

marketing violent R-rated films . . . to children and to provide parents with more information regarding the content of their products.’’ The second Report found virtually no advertisements for R-rated movies in popular teen magazines, routine inclusion of reasons for ratings in print and television advertising, and substantial

compliance with the industry’s pledges regarding trailer placement.

Let’s also discuss the voluntary movie rating system. It is, on occasion, the subject

of criticism, sometimes by film reviewers and directors for being ‘‘too strict’’ and

sometimes by members of Congress. Let us not forget that the R-rating does not

mean ‘‘Adult-Rated’’—that is the province of the NC-17 rating. Children are admitted to R-rated movies if accompanied by a parent or adult guardian. The rating system believes that only parents can make final decisions about what they want their

34

children to see or not to see. Indeed, for almost 33 years the movie industry has

been offering advance cautionary warnings to parents about individual films so that

parents can make their own judgments. We are the only enterprise in our national

marketplace to voluntarily turn away revenues in order to redeem our obligation to

parents.

In the most recent survey by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New

Jersey (September, 2000), 81 percent of parents with young children found the rating system to be ‘‘fairly useful’’ to ‘‘useful’’ in helping them guide their children’s

movie going. The FTC’s own independent survey, released at the time of its first

Report, in the Fall of 2000, revealed that 80 percent of parents were ‘‘satisfied’’ with

our rating system.

We are not perfect, to be sure, but our companies are committed to providing parents with advanced information about movies so that parents can make informed

judgments about their children’s visual viewing.

Mr. Chairman, this is an oversight hearing and my time is limited, so I will not

discuss some of the well-intentioned but very troubling legislation within the jurisdiction of your Committee. Suffice to say, though, that I agree with the bipartisan

views of the FTC commissioners, who wrote, ‘‘Because of The First Amendment protections afforded these products, the Commission continues to believe that vigilant

self-regulation is the best approach to ensuring that parents are provided with adequate information...’’

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you.

Ms. Rosen.

STATEMENT OF HILARY B. ROSEN

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me today.

Record companies perform many functions, but a most important

part of our job is to market and promote an artist’s vision and

music to his fans and to help them find new audiences for their

work. It is a task we take seriously, and I want to stress to you

today that it is a task we perform responsibly.

In 1985, we reached agreement with the national PTA and the

Parents Music Resource Center to label explicit lyrics, music releases with a parental advisory logo. The logo has been made uniform in size and it appears on the permanent packaging or on the

artwork on the front side of a CD or cassette. In many cases, record

companies release edited versions of the same product and those

are indicated on the top spine at retail, the so-called radio versions.

The FTC actually found that 77 percent of parents were aware

of the music industry’s system, and of those that were aware, 74

percent approved of the system.

But in response to legitimate criticisms, we did more. In October,

2000, we created a uniform standard of application for the logo. We

created an advertising policy to make sure that people were aware

of the logo. We created guidelines for the Internet and music distribution on line.

In February, the FTC issued another report and gave the music

industry a failing grade. To be sure, we deserved it, and I said so

publicly at the time. Immediately, I began working with the National Association of Recording Merchandisers and our member

companies to establish an implementation task force for the Parental Advisories Program. I have met personally with top executives

of every major record company to review their implementation of

the guidelines, And we have been meeting with our retail partners

as well.

35

I am confident we are making progress in assuring that our

guidelines are being met. There is no excuse for not doing what we

said we were going to do. The implementation task force, just for

your information, has also addressed some other program improvements, which we are currently working into our guidelines: Expanding the advertising requirement to television and radio, using

the label on street marketing programs and music sampler giveaways, and encouraging the posting of lyrics.

The FTC criticisms have generally fallen into two categories. The

first I have just addressed. We must do better. The second we are

going to consistently disagree with them on, because it is more

problematic. Despite their claims that they are not making contentbased judgments, the FTC is repeatedly criticizing us for marketing

inappropriate content for teens. Put simply, the RIAA Parental Advisory Program is not an age-based rating system.

Therefore, all of the FTC criticisms that we are marketing material that we have already determined is inappropriate to children

is simply unfounded. Our label is an advisory logo about explicit

lyrics and it makes no judgments, nor do we think such judgments

are warranted about what is age appropriate.

Informational rating systems must reflect the nature of their respective media. Our system is often compared to television and

movies and video games. And while our industries work together

for education, they are very different, and for good reason. Books

have no label or rating, even those that contain explicit content

and are marketed directly to children. Why? Because words are

subject to interpretation, to imagination, and most people feel labeling books is a bad idea.

Lyrics are likewise susceptible to varying interpretations. Words

will have different meanings, depending on who is hearing them.

Music is closer to books than it is to video games or television or

movies.

Parents are overwhelmingly satisfied with our program, and we

can do more. We can reach the rest of those parents that the FTC

found didn’t know about the program and were engaged in aggressive efforts to do so.

Technology has a positive impact on this. In months to come,

major record companies are launching subscription services to deliver music on-line. Each of these services are exploring ways to

put parental tools in place; for filters to allow consumers to block

labeled music if they choose.

This issue of explicit lyrics is a difficult one and one on which

there may be fair and principal disagreements. I recognize there

are some who would like to see us impose more self-regulation or

Government regulation, but you must understand there are people

in the music community who think we have gone too far.

In summary, I think we have achieved the right balance. The recording industry has a system in place that works, one that reflects

the nature of the unique art form. It is being strengthened and promoted and it is overwhelmingly supported by America’s parents.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hilary B. Rosen follows:]

36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HILARY B. ROSEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, RECORDING

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today.

I am Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of

America, an association that represents over 600 record companies.

Ours is an industry that prides itself on its diversity. Our companies work with

hundreds of thousands of artists to create countless works across the musical spectrum, from acoustic ballads to zydeco melodies. In fact, our members create over

90% of the legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States.

Record companies perform many functions but a most important part of our job

is to market and promote an artist’s music to his fans and help them find new audiences for their work. It is a task we take seriously and I want to stress to you today

that it is a task we perform responsibly. After all we are not just business executives, we are parents and concerned citizens who make decisions based on our

dreams for our children and our commitment to our communities.

That is why today I want to talk about how our present day Parental Advisory

system came about, why it is not an age-based system, the support it enjoys and

what we’re doing to build on that support.

The Evolution of the Recording Industry’s Voluntary Program

The premise of our system is to balance an artist’s right of self-expression with

a parents’ need for information to make choices based on their children’s individual

situation and their own values.

In 1985, we reached agreement on that approach with the National Parent Teacher Association and the Parents Music Resource Center. Within months, music releases with explicit lyrics, whether about violence or sex, were identified.

And over the years, our system evolved, responding to the changing needs of retailers and parents and adapting to new technological developments in the entertainment industry.

In 1990, after some parents complained that they couldn’t spot the advisory easily, we took steps to strengthen our system. We established a uniform, universally

recognizable Parental Advisory logo. It is one inch by a half-inch on cassettes and

CD jewel boxes. We also launched an extensive marketing campaign to educate both

parents and retailers about the system and the new logo.

And in October, 2000, we again announced new steps to improve our system. In

fact, we announced three:

First, we provided our members with uniform standards to guide a label and artist in deciding whether to apply the Parental Advisory logo. They advise that this

decision be made by weighing contemporary cultural morals. They also clarify that

the logo should be applied to single-track recordings when they are commercially released as well as to full albums.

Second, we established a policy to include the Parental Advisory label not just on

explicit sound recordings, but also in consumer print advertisements for these recordings.

Third, we established uniform guidelines urging all of our on-line retail partners

to prominently display the Parental Advisory Label for all labeled products from the

catalog pages all the way through to the shopping basket.

And in April of this year, in conjunction with the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM), we announced the formation of a new marketing compliance task force to further improve the effectiveness of the industry’s Parental Advisory Program. We met with officers from the marketing, advertising and legal departments from each of our individual member companies to help ensure that when

they place consumer print ads they understand the guidelines and are properly implementing them.

Public Education about our program will play a major part in our efforts over the

next year as well.

Informational Systems Should Reflect the Nature of Their Respective Industries

Our labeling system is often inappropriately compared to the ratings systems in

place for the television, motion picture and videogame industries. While our industries work together to bring information about our systems to parents through the

www.parentalguide.org website, our systems are very different. And for good reason.

Each system is designed and has evolved to reflect the media to which it applies.

37

Books have no label or rating, even those that contain explicit content and are

marketed directly to children. Why? Words are very subject to interpretation and

imagination, and most feel that labeling books is a bad idea.

Music consists of lyrics and composition, and we as an industry do label recordings that contain explicit content. As our guidelines suggest, context is obviously important: some words, phrases, sounds, or descriptions might be offensive to parents

if spotlighted or emphasized, but might not offend if merely part of the background

or not a meaningful part of the lyrics. The context of the artist performing the material, as well as the expectations of the artist’s audience, is also important.

Lyrics are often susceptible to varying interpretations. Words can have different

meanings. Also, words cannot be viewed in isolation from the music that accompanies them. Lyrics when accompanied by loud and raucous music can be perceived

differently than the same lyrics when accompanied by soft and soothing music.

For example, I know of a work that has it all—sex, violence, adultery, murder,

etc. It’s Bizet’s Carmen, an opera that is a favorite with musicians and the public

alike. What would happen to this work under such a system?

Even if classical works were to be set aside, song lyrics are by their nature impressionistic and are often used symbolically. While it is possible to measure the

amount of pollutants in water or how much energy is needed to run an appliance,

there is no universal criteria for categorizing words in lyrics or books.

Unlike books and music, movies are audiovisual works which may leave less to

the imagination, and as such have ratings systems which take age into account

while still leaving to parents to make the decision about what is suitable for their

children to watch.

Finally, videogames, which are audiovisual and interactive, have added elements

in their ratings system.

Music is much closer to books than it is to movies or videogames in nature. While

we have agreed to label when explicit content is contained in a sound recording, we

do not have an age-based system. We do not prohibit the marketing of music to certain age groups. We do provide a well-known and commercially accepted logo to

identify recordings that contain explicit material so that parents have a ‘‘heads-up’’

in making purchasing decisions. We feel it is appropriate to warn parents that there

may be objectionable material in an album or song but leave it to them to decide,

based on their own values, what’s appropriate for their children.

So what does this mean? It simply means that we need a system that fits the

entertainment. And I believe the parental advisory systems we have today for books,

music, movies and video games reflect the nature of each industry.

Parents on the Parental Advisory Program

And it is important for this body to know that parents already have weighed in

on our parental advisory system. And overwhelmingly, they support it. In fact, according to the Federal Trade Commission, 75% of parents who are aware of the parental advisory program, support the recording industry’s system.

Parents understand that lyrics are subjective; they simply want a tool to help

them identify that music which may have content that they may find objectionable.

We provide them with that tool , and are currently engaged in educational efforts

to make it even more ubiquitous.

And at this point, I should add that despite the emphasis at these hearings on

recordings with explicit content, they comprise a relatively small proportion of our

industry’s output and the themes and language contained in all of our music reflects

different parts of today’s society.

In an average retail store with 110,000 titles, about 500 will carry the Parental

Advisory logo. That’s less than one-half of one percent of that store’s total inventory.

Let me repeat that again, it is less than one-half of one percent. And the major labels produce edited versions of nearly all recordings that carry the logo. Compare

to that the fact that Country comprises 10% of our industry’s product, and that Gospel and Contemporary Christian comprises 7%, and it helps to put this issue into

perspective.

Federal Trade Commission Recommendations

Of course, we would not all be here if everyone were happy with our current rating system. As you are well aware, the Federal Trade Commission in the past has

been critical of it. It suggested that we focus our efforts in three areas.

Specifically, the FTC recommended that the industry should:

1. Establish guidelines for advertising—we have

2. Increase compliance at retail—retailers make their own decisions, and we support

those decisions

38

3. Increase parental understanding of the label—70% of the people have said that

they are aware but we can always do more education. And in fact, it on that

last point that I wish to focus on.

Awareness Campaign

Our industry is currently engaged in a campaign to do just that—raise public

awareness about our Parental Advisory program.

One of the steps we have taken to that end is the launching of a campaign around

a new Parental Advisory Labeling brochure, intended to educate parents, caregivers,

PTAs, and other consumers about the program. This campaign will be centered on

leaders within the educational community who are in a position to carry RIAA’s message to both students and parents. The initial distribution will include parentteacher organizations, school principals, coaches, music teachers, school guidance

counselors, school psychologists and local and federal officials nationwide.

We recognize, however, that we also need to have a presence where consumers

purchase most of their music—retail stores. That is why we decide to update all

countertop displays and store posters of the Parental Advisory Label with the web

address for parentalguide.org.

As you may know, this website is a one stop resource for parents to learn about

the parental advisory program as well as the different rating systems for television,

movies and video games. By adding this address, it points parents to a single resource about content whereas otherwise they may not have normally visited each

individual site to learn about the different rating system for each industry.

And lastly, I also want to mention that we have developed a Public Service Announcement in which music industry legend, Quincy Jones, appears. This PSA will

be made available to not only television markets across the country but radio stations as well.

A Word of Caution, Consequences and Conclusion

In summary, the recording industry has in place a system that works, one that

reflects the nature of the industry, one that is overwhelming supported by America’s parents and one that is being strengthened and promoted.

Given these facts, I would caution you against allowing government intervention

in the marketing of music. I know that some of your colleagues have introduced a

measure that is identical to one that was introduced in the Senate by Senator

Lieberman. The very nature of these proposals raise serious constitutional red flags.

In fact, the Federal Trade Commission itself stated that they believed that ‘‘because

of First Amendment issues... vigilant self-regulation is the best approach to ensuring that parents are provided with adequate information to guide their children’s exposure to entertainment media with violent content.’’ And while I am sympathetic with parents who feel that their children are no

longer under their moral control, this just isn’t the case and these measures certainly aren’t the cure.

Young people who continue to need the guidance and leadership of adults in their

lives. It is simply wrong to suggest that any government regulatory action can substitute for such involvement, particularly when it comes to art.

This debate over music keeps coming back to the same thing. Despite all of the

trappings and new ways to look at the issue, the fact is that some people just don’t

like the music. And that is a freedom of expression issue.

Remember that the distinction between high art and the low road is deeply rooted

in individual values and perspectives. For each person who believes rap lyrics portray a foreign world, there is another who finds them deep and powerful because

that world is all too real.

And above all, we must remember this: In our country, expression is not required

to pass any test of validity, or even propriety, to be both permitted and protected.

After all, the test of whether America allows free speech is not whether it grants

freedom to those with whom we mildly disagree. It is whether we protect the freedom of those whose views—and language—make us apoplectic.

I am proud that ours is a parental advisory program that not only respects one

of our nation’s most cherished freedoms but also empowers parents and has their

support.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. McMillon.

STATEMENT OF DOUG McMILLON

Mr. MCMILLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will briefly summarize my statement.

39

At Wal-Mart, we are a customer-driven company. Our customers

are the primary force behind the decisions we make. We aspire to

be an important part of our communities and to provide products

and services that raise the standard of living for our customers.

Consistent with that aspiration, Wal-Mart attempts to sell entertainment product in a way that allows our customers to make informed decisions and to exclude from our shelves merchandise that

our customers find objectionable due to its sexually explicit or extremely violent nature.

The challenges we face are in our ability to first help the customer understand what they are buying and, second, determine

which products they find objectionable either before and in some

cases after we have made it available for purchase.

At times, this is harder than it sounds due to the subjective nature of some of these decisions. In the case of movies, we use the

Motion Picture Association ratings. We do not carry NC-17 product.

We do carry R-rated movies, which our buyer selects on a title-bytitle basis. Our cashiers are prompted at their registers to verify

the purchaser is 17 or older. We are involved in an ongoing training effort to ensure that all of our more than 120,000 cashiers execute our policy of age verification.

In the case of video games and computer software, we use the

ESRB ratings. We do not carry adult-only titles and we register

prompt for age verification on M-rated titles.

In addition to register prompting, we have also implemented instore signing, print advertising and associate training to explain

the ESRB rating system.

In the case of music, we do not have a rating system to follow.

We do not currently carry Parental Advisory stickered music. We

do carry edited versions of some Parental Advisory music. We do

not age restrict the sale of any music products. From our perspective, a standardized rating system for music would help our customers make a more informed purchasing decision.

In conclusion, while we strive to use our best judgment on what

we carry and work hard to restrict the sale of certain products to

those under the age of 17, it is not possible to eliminate every

image, word or topic that an individual might find objectionable.

In addition, we are the first to admit that our systems and training, good as they are, are not infallible. We want our customers to

make informed decisions and feel that we are handling entertainment product in an appropriate manner.

[The prepared statement of Doug McMillon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG MCMILLON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL

MERCHANDISE MANAGER, WAL-MART STORES, INC.

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Doug McMillon, Senior Vice

President and General Merchandise Manager, for Wal-Mart Stores.

At Wal-Mart, we have worked hard to create and protect our relationship with

our customers. They are and always have been the guiding force behind our decisions. We have created stores that offer every day low prices, quality merchandise,

and fast and friendly service. Our associates have also been involved with the individuals and families in our communities. Last year alone, we supported our communities with $190 million in charitable giving. Ninety-seven percent of that money

was donated at the local level through our stores. We aspire to be an important part

40

of our customers’ communities and to provide products and services that raise the

standard of living for the working families of America.

Consistent with that aspiration, Wal-Mart attempts to sell entertainment product

in a way that allows our customers to make informed decisions and to exclude from

our shelves, merchandise that our customers find objectionable due to its sexually

explicit or extremely violent nature. The challenge we face is in our ability to 1) help

the customers understand what they are buying and 2) determine which products

they find objectionable either before, and in some cases after, we have made it available for purchase. At times, this is harder than it sounds due to the subjective nature of some of these decisions.

Any success we achieve in these efforts is accomplished, in large part, by following

rating systems established by the entertainment industries.

MOVIES

In the case of movies, we use the MPAA, Motion Picture Association of America,

voluntary ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) as we make decisions about which

movies to carry. For example, we do not carry NC-17 rated content. We do carry

G, PG, PG-13 and some R rated content. Our buyers for movies determine which

R rated movies to carry based on their best judgment. They use their knowledge

of our customers and the customer response to the movie in theaters to make a decision on a specific title. We then utilize a register prompt at our cash registers to

verify the age of the customer buying the R rated movie. In accordance with our

policy only those customers who are age 17 and above are permitted to purchase

R rated movies.

We believe that because MPAA ratings have been in consistent use since 1968,

there now exists a widespread customer understanding of the ratings. As a result,

we have few customer questions about the ratings themselves. Our customers seem

to clearly understand what they are purchasing.

VIDEO GAMES AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE

In the case of video games (for example, Sony Playstation or Nintendo games) and

computer software, we use the ESRB, Entertainment Software Rating Board, ratings (EC, E, T, M, and AO) as we make decisions about which products to carry.

We do not carry software rated adults only (as rated by the ESRB). As a rule, we

do not carry Parental Advisory stickered product. We do carry EC, E, T, and select

M titles. Our buyers for video games and computer software determine which M

rated products to carry based on his or her best judgment. They use their knowledge

of our customers to make decisions on specific titles. We then utilize a register

prompt at our cash registers to verify the age of the customer buying the M rated

product. In accordance with our policy only customers who are age 17 and above

are permitted to purchase M rated titles.

Since the ESRB has only been in existence since 1994, we sense that a large number of our customers do not clearly understand the ratings system. In addition to

register prompting, we have taken several steps to educate our customers on how

to interpret the ratings including in store signing; print advertising; and associate

training. As a specific example, Wal-Mart stores display in store signing which explains the ESRB ratings. For video games and software, in store signing is placed

in either the glass case or section where the item is stocked and explains the ESRB

ratings to customers.

MUSIC

In the case of music, we do not have a ratings system to follow. The music labels

determine on a title-by-title basis whether to attach a parental advisory sticker or

not. We refer to this as stickered music. Today, we do not carry parental advisory

stickered music.

The music labels make edited versions of some stickered music available. We do

carry edited versions of music on selected product. This product is labeled ‘‘edited

version.’’ Our buyers for music determine which non-stickered and edited music to

carry based on their best judgment. From our perspective, an unbiased, standardized ratings system would help our customers determine whether specific music is

appropriate for their needs and tastes.

We do not restrict the sale of any music products. If we were to make the decision

to carry parental advisory music, we would most likely restrict the sale through a

register prompt as we do with R rated movies and M rated video games.

41

CONCLUSION

While we use our best judgment at Wal-Mart on which items we carry, and while

we work hard to restrict the sale of certain products to those under the age of 17,

it is simply not possible to eliminate every image, word or topic that an individual

might find objectionable. In addition, we’re the first to admit our systems and our

associates, good as they are, are not infallible.

However, it is our sincere hope that our policies make it possible for our customers to make informed decisions and for them to feel we are handling entertainment product in an appropriate manner.

At this time I am pleased to answer any of your questions.

APPENDIX

MPAA (Motion Picture Association) Ratings

G (General Audience)—All ages admitted.

PG (Parental Guidance Suggested)—Some material may not be suitable for children.

PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned)—Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

R (Restricted)—Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian

NC-17—No One 17 and Under Admitted.

ESRB (Entertainment Standards Ratings Board) Ratings

EC (Early Childhood)—content suitable for persons ages 3 and older

E (Everyone)—Content suitable for persons ages 6 and older

T (Teen)—Content suitable for persons ages 13 and older

M (Mature)—Content suitable for persons ages 17 and older

AO (Adults Only)—Content suitable only for adults

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Ms. White.

STATEMENT OF DAPHNE WHITE

Ms. WHITE. Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me

here today. While some would call me an advocate, I am here today

to speak as a mother. It is as a mother that I started the national

grass roots organization called The Lion & Lamb Project to organize and support parents who want to tell the entertainment industry, as one of your colleagues did today, that enough is enough.

I represent millions of parents and other concerned adults, teachers, grandparents, guidance counselors, psychologists, who want to

tell the entertainment industry that the violent fare that they are

serving our children on a minute-by-minute, hourly, daily, aroundthe-clock basis is not acceptable and must stop. Industry must do

more to restrain themselves.

It is important to understand that entertainment violence is neither innocuous nor harmless. In July of last year, representatives

of six public health organizations presented a joint letter to Congress on this very topic. To quote from that statement, ‘‘The conclusion of the public health community based on over 30 years of research is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases

in aggressive attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children.’’ The groups who signed the statement included the American

Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the

American Psychological Association and the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

So that last September when the FTC investigated the marketing of violence to children and found that these three industries

represented here today were indeed target marketing adult level

violence to children pervasively and aggressively, I was hoping that

by now we would have had much better, meaningful and enforceable self-regulation by these industries.

42

If I were to grade the three industry groups on their progress,

I would give the music industry an F, the movie industry a Dminus, and the video game industry a D-plus. I expect better than

Ds from my son and I expect better grades from entertainment industries that currently earn billions of dollars from parents nationwide.

So what kind of progress has been made since September? What

has the movie industry done since the FTC report was first issued?

Well, they came up with a 12-step plan poetically stating that Rrated films would not be, ‘‘inappropriately specifically marketed to

children.’’ Inappropriately specifically? That phrase alone would

earn a D-minus in most high school writing classes. We found the

movie industry’s 12-step plan so full of loopholes that any mom

could drive a mini-van right through it.

So after the second set of Senate hearings, we sent a simple survey to all the studio heads who testified to try to get some clear

answers to a variety of different things they obfuscated about during the hearing. So we asked simple questions like, ‘‘Will movie

theaters continue to air previews for R-rated movies before PGrated features?’’ some people said yes, some no. We couldn’t tell

who said what. ‘‘Will movie theaters continue to advertise R-rated films on national television before 9 p.m.? Will movie studios continue to advertise R-rated movies on teen Internet sites?’’ not a single studio

bothered to answer a single one of these questions. They continued

to assert that parents like and trust their rating system, but they

refuse to deal with parents or answer any parents’ concerns.

By the way, I talked to hundreds and thousands of parents every

year during workshops and I have yet to meet a one who is as satisfied with the survey as Mr. Valenti says they are.

So let me say, I asked these questions 10 months ago and have

not received any answers yet, and I would be very happy to receive

some answers today.

What about the video game industry? They have also refused to

share these guidelines that we just heard about and were quoted

in the FTC report. And as a parents group, we wanted to know,

‘‘Okay. Sounds like great guidelines. What are they?’’ the industry

refused to give those to us. We had to file a FOIA request with

FTC. And we did get one of those letters from the IDSA, but the

Entertainment Software Review Board, which had some other

guidelines that were quoted in the report, has so far been fighting

our FOIA request and we have not got it.

So the question is, where are the teeth in these so-called industry self-regulations? What specific guidelines have they adopted?

How can parents be more involved in the process?

About the music industry, I won’t say much beyond what my

Russian grandmother would have said. It is hard to translate in

English. But basically, ‘‘Their total refusal to reform their marketing system,’’ is what she would have said, ‘‘is beneath contempt.’’

Let me say a few words about the First Amendment. I am a

mom, not a First Amendment lawyer. But we have heard that the

First Amendment prohibits us from placing any restrictions whatsoever on the marketing of violence toward children.

43

Let me just quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who

said, ‘‘You are all confused about what you have a right to do under

the Constitution and the right thing to do.’’ That is two different

things.

So I ask you to broaden your thinking about the First Amendment and the protection that should be accorded our children. This

is not an open and shut case. I would specifically request that the

Congress consider holding a separate set of hearings specifically on

First Amendment issues and how they impact on this case so a real

debate can take place. Right now, I fear the First Amendment is

being used by industry as the first and best tool to close debate

rather than to open debate, and that is a real problem. I do think

self-regulation would be a good idea if it happens. But if the industries continue to fail to adopt sufficient, enforceable transparent

standards, I ask the subcommittee to consider putting teeth behind

the FTC recommendations.

What will it take to make these companies behave responsibly?

I hope it does not take another Columbine or another 13-year-old

shooting a teacher or another 8-year-old shooting a classmate. It

might take some self-restraint on the part of industry. As a last recourse, it might eventually take some legislation.

I implore you as Members of Congress on behalf of all the parents and concerned adults in your districts and throughout this

country to do your part to stop this blatant marketing of violence

to children.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Daphne White follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAPHNE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE LION & LAMB

PROJECT

My name is Daphne White and I am Executive Director of The Lion & Lamb

Project, a national grassroots parents’ initiative founded in 1995. The mission of The

Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children. We do this

by helping parents, industry and government officials recognize that violence is not

child’s play—and by galvanizing concerned adults to take action.

I am speaking to you today as a mother of a 13-year-old boy, and as a former

journalist who spent 20 years writing about education and family issues. I became

concerned about media violence when my son was two years old, and I noticed that

violence was being marketed even to toddlers. I left journalism and became an activist when I learned that violent media images have been shown to have lasting negative effects on the attitude and behavior of children, and especially young children

under the age of 8.

I am here representing millions of parents who want to tell the entertainment industry what that news anchorman shouted in the movie Network: ‘‘I’m mad as hell

and I’m not going to take it anymore!’’ We are here today to examine the entertainment industry’s efforts to curb children’s exposure to violent content, and specifically their efforts at reform since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report came

out in September 2001.

In its September report, the FTC found that the video game, movie and music industries were indeed marketing adult-level violence to children in a ‘‘pervasive and

aggressive’’ way.

Some of the specific findings were indeed shocking—but perhaps they were more

‘‘shocking’’ to the innocent industry executives than to the weary parents of young

children, who had been on the receiving end of these marketing tactics for years.

The FTC found, among other things, that children as young as nine years old were

being used in focus groups to test R-rated movies; that internal marketing plans for

R-rated movies and M-rated video games admitted that teens were the real audience for these adult-rated products; and that R-rated movies were being advertised

directly to children in camps and at Boys and Girls Clubs.

44

I am sure the industry representatives assembled here today will tell you that all

these practices have now stopped, that violence is no longer marketed to children,

and that government need do nothing else to protect America’s children. Nothing

could be further from the truth! As a parent, I can tell you that our children are

still exposed to violent ‘‘entertainment’’ every single day.

It is important to understand that ‘‘entertainment’’ violence is neither innocuous

nor harmless. On July 26, 2000, representatives of six public health organizations

presented a Joint Letter to the Congress on this very topic. ‘‘The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive

attitudes, values and behavior, particularly in children,’’ according the statement. It

was signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

If any of you work with the scientific community, you know how hard it is to get

six organizations to agree to anything. While the entertainment industry pays its

own consultants to debunk this research, I want to make it clear that the scientific

consensus is clear: numerous studies ‘‘point overwhelmingly to a causal connection

between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children,’’ according to the

public health groups.

In fact, while most of the long-term research focused on television violence—which

is a passive viewing of violence—preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact of video game interactive violence may be ‘‘significantly more severe than that

wrought by television, movies or music,’’ according to the Joint Statement.

Because of the public health implications of this issue, the Senate asked the FTC

for a follow-up report, released in April, to assess how much progress had been

made by industry since September. In that second report, the FTC did find that

‘‘some’’ progress had been made by the movie and video game industry—none by the

music industry—but that much remained to be done. As a parent’s organization, we

would agree with that assessment.

If I were to give the three industry groups a grade, I would give the music industry an ‘‘F,’’ the movie industry a ‘‘D minus’’ and the video game industry a ‘‘D plus.’’ The FTC did say that the video game industry has done ‘‘more’’ than the other industries, and that their ratings system are ‘‘better’’—but since the other two industries are getting lousy grades, ‘‘better’’ than lousy is still far from good. I expect better than ‘‘D’s’’ from my son, and I expect better grades from ‘‘entertainment’’ industries that currently earn billions of dollars from parents nationwide.

Am I just a tough grader? I don’t think so. I believe these grades reflect reality— the reality parents live with every day. I travel across the country frequently, offering parenting workshops dealing with the issue of media violence. I have been to

towns as remote as Sitka, Alaska and Chautauqua, New York—everywhere I travel,

parents are concerned about the level of violence that is marketed to ever-younger

children.

Let me give you some examples of the types of marketing that is still taking place

today, 10 months after the original Federal Trade Commission report came out.

Let’s start with the video game industry, as this industry claims to have done the

best job in reforming its practices:

Here is a recent Toys R Us circular—Toys R Us, let us remember, is a toy store.

It sells toys to children. But here is an ad showing a young boy surrounded by Game

Boys—the platform geared most specifically to children—and a variety of video

games. This looks like a child-friendly page, and features an array of 14 games including Donkey Kong, Frogger and Scooby Do. (These games are all rated ‘‘E’’ for

Everyone by the industry ratings group, the Entertainment Software Review Board

or ESRB.)

But a closer looks shows that snuck in among the many children’s games rated

‘‘E’’ on this page are two very adult games: Perfect Dark and Conker’s Bad Fur Day,

both rated ‘‘M’’ for mature. Children, as well as their parents, will likely conclude

that all the games on this page of Toys R Us are appropriate for youth.

They would be wrong, of course. Here is one section from a New York Times review of Perfect Dark: ‘‘Swarms of deadly enemies must be eliminated... shooting accurately at bad guys takes enormous amounts of practice...Practice pays off . . . and

yes, blood splatters the walls and floors behind and beneath enemies on the receiving end of your arsenal.’’

Perfect Dark is a Nintendo game that looks and feels like an older game called

Goldeneye. The James Bond-based Goldeneye—one of the most violent first-person

shooter games I have ever seen—was somehow rated ‘‘T’’ for Teen, and was very

popular with teens. While Perfect Dark is now rated ‘‘M’’ for Mature, placing an ad

45

for this game in the midst of kids’ titles is clearly an effort to target market this

adult game to children.

Conker’s Bad Fur Day is also rated ‘‘M’’ for Mature. According to Nintendo, this

risque ́, game is purely an entry for adults. So why are they advertising the game

in a Toys R Us catalogue? And why is this game about a ‘‘hung-over, foulmouthed

squirrel’’ (in the words of the Village Voice) coming out in an ‘‘E’’-rated version for

the Game Boy??

Oni is another violent video game—rated ‘‘T’’ for Teen—that often finds its way

onto the E-rated pages of Toys R Us. Here is how one New York Times reviewer

described this game: First, he complained that when playing many other first-person shooter games—such as the adult-rated Quake III Arena, he ‘‘barely felt a thing’’ when ‘‘shooting a fellow in the back with a rocket.’’ ‘‘With Oni,’’ he raved, ‘‘I’m involved. It’s hard not to be involved when you can hear

your enemy’s neck snap.’’ And how is this Play Station 2 game rated? Oni is rated ‘‘T,’’ for teenagers! Look for it at your local Toys R Us, between Conker the hungover squirrel and Reader Rabbit, which just happens to be a child-friendly educational video game.

These are just some examples of the marketing of violent video games to children.

The industry trade association—the Interactive Digital Software Association—has so

far refused to adopt the three very reasonable and modest recommendations for reform proposed in the September FTC report. As a result, the April follow-up FTC

report found that most video game companies are still advertising adult-rated video

games in magazines with a large under-17 audience.

We agree with the FTC finding that the video industry can do much more than

it is now doing to stop the marketing of violence to children. Bit I also agree with

IDSA President Doug Lowenstien on one point. In his address to the annual industry trade show E3—the Electronic Entertainment Expo—Mr. Lowenstein noted how

video games are now ubiquitous in the home, the internet, the wireless world, in

cars and vans, on airplanes, in military settings... and even in schools.

He described an interactive video game that is now being used in Willard Model

Elementary School in Norfolk, VA. ‘‘It’s just a matter of time before more and more

games will be used as teaching tools,’’ Mr. Lowenstein said. I agree that video

games can and are used as teaching tools. The question, Mr. Lowenstein, is what

kinds of lesson will video games are teaching our children in the future.

Will the technology of video games continue to teach children to feel satisfaction

in snapping necks, running over pedestrians, blowing policemen to pieces, and eviscerating people . . . or will the game technology be used to teach values that most

American parents will feel comfortable with?

Now let’s turn to the movie industry. Again, ‘‘some’’ progress has been made—but

not nearly enough. This industry has also refused to accept the threshold recommendations for reform proposed in the FTC report.

True, R-rated previews—‘‘appropriate for all audiences’’—are no longer shown before G-rated matinees. But previews for R-rated features are still shown before PG13 features, which are largely aimed at teens. And studios are still advertising Rrated movies during television programs most popular with teens.

Finally, the movie and television industries are still airing R-rated movies such

as Scream during a time when many children are watching. In the case of Scream

and Scream 2, which aired in January 2001, that time was 8 p.m. And just to make

sure kids knew about this televised movie, Fox advertised the film during the afterschool cartoon programs, when the greatest number of children are watching television.

I won’t go even begin to talk about how inappropriate the current movie rating

system is—and how much violence is considered ‘‘appropriate’’ for PG-13, PG and

even G-rated movies. But I can tell you that many parents are appalled at the

scenes they see, with their children, when they take them to movies that the industry assures them are ‘‘appropriate’’ for children.

The FTC recommends that each of the industries should ‘‘establish or expand

codes that prohibit target marketing to children and impose sanctions for violations.’’ What has the movie industry done? They came up with a 12-step plan that

poetically states that R-rated films will not be ‘‘inappropriately specifically’’ targeted

to children. Inappropriately specifically? That phrase alone would earn a D minus

in most high school writing classes.

We found the movie industry’s 12-step plan so full of loopholes any mother could

drive a mini-van through it. So after the second set of Senate hearings—where each

of the seven studio heads appeared to commit to slightly different ‘‘specific and inappropriate’’ reforms—we sent a simple, 14-question survey to all the studio heads

who had testified.

As a parent group, we wanted to understand a few simple facts, such as:

46

• Will movie theaters continue to air previews for R-rated movies before PG-rated

features? • Will movie theaters advertise R-rated films on national television before 9 p.m.? • Will movie theaters advertise R-rated movies on teen internet sites? • Does the effort to ‘‘not inappropriately specifically target children’’ mean a stop

to the practice of licensing children’s products such as toys, toy guns, action figures, fast-food promotions and other products based on R-rated movies?

Not a single studio bothered to answer a single one of these questions. The Motion

Picture Association of America assures parents that their rating system and their

12-step program are there for the sole purpose of helping parents make wise choices.

But in truth, when a parents’ group such as ours asks for information, the movie

industry can’t come up with even a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer to simple questions.

Instead of answers, we received a letter from the MPAA with the same vague 12-

step program attached, along with the confusing Senate testimony that had already

been presented. Let me just say that even though that questionnaire was mailed

out 10 months ago, I would still be happy to receive simple ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answers today.

Let me add that IDSA has been equally uncooperative in answering our questions.

In its April report—which IDSA claims it passed with flying colors—the FTC mentioned some new marketing and advertising policies the video game industry has

adopted. When we requested those policies from the IDSA, our phone calls were not

returned. We had to file a Freedom of Information request with the FTC to get the

information. We eventually received that information, after paying a fee to the FTC.

The ESRB, meanwhile—the fabled ratings board that boasts its system is superior

to all others—is fighting our request to the bitter end. As a parents’ group we would

like to know: where are the teeth?? What specific guidelines have video game companies adapted to stop the marketing of violence to children? And what sanctions do

companies face if they don’t comply with these voluntary guidelines?

As a parents’ group, we believe this information should be public. If the video

game industry is really so proud of its voluntary self-enforcement system, they

should be eager to display that system to parents and other concerned adults. Show

us your voluntary system, and how you will enforce it. That way, parents will have

more confidence in your industry.

To date, I am sorry to report that we have seen nothing from the ESRB. Our

FOIA request is still pending, four months after the April FTC report was issued.

I won’t say much about the music industry beyond what my Russian grandmother

would have said: their total and unequivocal refusal to reform their marketing system is ‘‘beneath contempt.’’ Like the movie and video game industry, the music industry likes to hide behind the fig leaf of the First Amendment.

But as Justice Potter Stewart once said, ‘‘You are all confused about what you

have a right to do under the Constitution and the right thing to do.’’

I am a mother, not a constitutional lawyer. But I would like to quote former Federal Communications Commission chair Newton Minow who wrote ‘‘It would surely

come as a surprise to those who wrote the First Amendment to see that Americans

now cite it not to begin discussion of the public interest, but as a reason to close

it.’’

Let’s get real here: these three industries are not really in business of protecting

the First Amendment. They are in the business of promoting their members’ bottom

line. But at what cost? I am here to tell you, as a mother, that this cost involves

our children’s lives.

To quote Newton Minow again, ‘‘The First Amendment is considered a ‘preferred

freedom’—one that, when balanced against other rights, gets the benefit of the

doubt—but it is not an absolute freedom. It cannot be exercised at the expense of

other constitutional rights or, in narrowly defined categories, contrary to public safety or well-being.’’

The First Amendment was designed for political speech—until very recently, commercial speech was not accorded nearly the same rights as political speech. Likewise, the First Amendment has allowed for the protection of children—for example,

it is no longer legal to advertise alcohol, or cigarettes, or pornography to children.

Corporations can no longer argue that the restriction in the marketing of those

products has rung a death knell for the First Amendment.

I ask you today, as the Representatives of parents across the country, to broaden

your thinking about the First Amendment, and the protection that should be accorded children under this Amendment.

I also urge you to consider holding a separate set of congressional hearings on

these First Amendment issues, so a real debate about this amendment can take

place. Right now, I’m afraid, the First Amendment is being used by industry as the

first and best tool to censor debate.

47

In conclusion, I would like to as the members of this subcommittee to consider

follow-up actions to this oversight hearing. All manner of violence is still being marketed to children, as I have demonstrated today. The First Amendment is not an

excuse to do nothing—it is a challenge to do more to protect the freedom of parents

and children alike. Freedom to live in a peaceful, nonviolent, and civil society.

I also ask the three industries represented here today to clean up their marketing

practices toward children, voluntarily adopt the FTC recommendations, and set up

stringent, transparent and enforceable self-regulatory provisions to stop the types of

marketing efforts discussed here.

If the industries fail to adopt these standards voluntarily, I ask this subcommittee

to consider putting legislative teeth behind the FTC recommendations.

America’s parents—America’s children—deserve better marketing, and better entertainment, than we are getting. Parents should not be forced by these media companies to become policemen and women in their our homes—to constantly say ‘‘no!’’

to our children when it comes to movies and music and video games.

The type of ubiquitous, never-ending marketing of violence to children must stop.

Violence is not child’s play. We have enough public health research now to know

the potential damage that can occur. What will it take to make these companies behave responsibly?

I hope it does not take another Columbine, or another 13-year-old shooting a

teacher, or another 8-year-old shooting a classmate. It might take some self-restraint on the part of industry. It might take some legislation. I implore you as

members of Congress, on behalf of all the parents and concerned adults in your districts and throughout this country, to do your part to stop this blatant marketing

of violence to our children.

Thank you.

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Thank all of you. At this point, we will

be doing questions and alternate between sides of the aisle in 5-

minute segments.

Ms. Rosen, based on—listening to your testimony, tell me if I am

correct, is the industry even considering a harsher or stronger label

for some of its recordings than what is there today?

Ms. ROSEN. What do you mean a harsher label?

Mr. UPTON. I think you know some of the tunes that some of us

have heard here. And as you look at whether it be TV or movie,

they break it down into more than just a general warning. Might

be violence on the TV. There might be nudity. There might be

strong language. There are a number of tools that a parent can

have—I don’t think anybody up here is talking about taking away

the First Amendment right. But as parents, we want better tools

to figure out what our kids are listening to. And at least this member has seen a number of the labels. The labels are all the same.

They don’t differentiate, as the movie industry and some of the others have done in terms of trying to break it down in terms of what

might be objectionable for a young person.

Ms. ROSEN. It is a fair question, Mr. Chairman. And in fact, because the Parental Advisory label is overly broad, we think it can

offer more protection, not less protection. The fact is that it is extraordinarily difficult to characterize what a label may mean, and

so that the fact that the label has more of a general implication

than it is an explicit lyric, that we think that we are erring on the

side of caution.

Mr. UPTON. I know as a dad with a 13-year-old daughter and a

9-year-old son, I know the difference between what is PG and an

R and everything else in terms of what might be there and what

my kids can watch, and they do, too.

Ms. ROSEN. Well, the issue of PG and R goes to the age-based

appropriateness.

48

Mr. UPTON. When you look at the V-chip, something that I supported and a number of other members of this panel did, too—and

I have a V-chip on my TV—I know that when certain shows are

on, it does break them down in terms of the type of objectionable

material, if they choose, might decide to block.

And when you talk about a song that talks about raping your

mother or slitting her throat with all those types of sounds that are

on there, I am just asking you whether or not maybe you might

want a stronger label than a simple advisory that could account for

a whole bunch of stuff.

Is it under consideration that you might look at a varying degree

of label so that a parent, if they choose, could use that as a tool

in terms of what their kids listen to?

Ms. ROSEN. No. It is not under consideration. We think the label

itself speaks—— Mr. UPTON. So this is it. This is your label. And at this point,

you are not looking at any stronger label at all?

Ms. ROSEN. If the question is, are we looking to change our labeling or rating system for different kinds of labels or to create an age

appropriate—— Mr. UPTON. Not necessarily age appropriate. Again, I have got a

9-year-old son. And what he listens to at 9 is going to be a lot different than what he listens to at 18 and 25. And he is cognizant,

too, of the different stuff that he hears.

Ms. ROSEN. The Parental Advisory label is an overly broad and

helpful tool because it says everywhere we publicize it, it is a notice

to parents that recordings identified by this logo may contain

strong language, depictions of violence, sex or substance abuse and

parental discretion is advised. So we err on the caution of

overbroad rather than try and interpret lyrics for anybody.

Mr. UPTON. I want to show you a cover of a CD that was purchased this last weekend at Best Buy. And on this label, you have

got—your warning was there, but it was covered up so that a parent could have easily—or son or daughter could have gone—and

underneath the price sticker, there is the label. It is put up precisely over where that label was.

Do you have—is there any code—I know that the regulations

that are out, you want that advisory sticker on the permanent

packaging for the particular CD. But what about the retailer that

has a label that precisely fits right over that, so that when you buy

it—and obviously, you don’t take that plastic wrap off before you

take it to the cash register—there is no clue that it might have an

advisory rating on it. Do you have any comment on that?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, I don’t represent the retailers, but I am sure

that the Retailers Association would agree that is an irresponsible

act on the part of the retailer to cover the label. That is one of the

reasons, though, to make sure there was broad awareness for

whenever a album was labeled, that we would include it in all advertising; that we would make sure if that was bought via Internet

information, that it was clearly labeled on Internet sites. It is very

important that people be able to know when they are looking at

promotions or advertising for labeled product that that is a labeled

product. There are other places in that store where the Parental

Advisory label exists.

49

Mr. UPTON. Would the industry support at least an advisory letter to the particular retailer, in this case, Best Buy, that this is not

good practice, putting the price sticker over the warning label?

Ms. ROSEN. Sure, but I think probably showing it is Best Buy’s

already listeners.

Mr. UPTON. My 5 minutes has gone too quickly. Mr. Sawyer.

Mr. SAWYER. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. Ms. Harman.

Ms. HARMAN. This is hard stuff, Mr. Chairman. And my friend

Hilary Rosen is going to get the brunt of this this morning—she

knows this—but she is a hardy soul.

Clearly it is wrong to have a record price tag block the warning.

I think everybody knows that. And it is irresponsible and I will say

it. I don’t represent the retailers or the wholesalers or the recording industry either. It is absolutely totally irresponsible of anybody

to cover over these labels which are intended to give some guidance

to parents.

Maybe it is a related question, but I think we all have our parent

hats on and you are a parent, too. You have very young kids, but

just wait till they go to stores by themselves. This warning label

is broad. And my kids are sophisticated and they say, ‘‘Well, gee,

mom. It is a broad label and it is on everything. And don’t you

trust me to make my own judgments about what content is reasonable or not? You have to trust me. If you just censor me totally,

I will not grow up to be a responsible person with values.’’ Now it

is easier for me in the movie case because I can say, ‘‘My friend

Jack Valenti has taken care to tell me it is an R or PG-13. And

I can see that and I tell you no R movies unless we review it first.’’ It is harder in the record case. What guidance should I give my

16 and 18-year-olds when they make this case to me that this

overbroad label is denying them their age appropriate responsibility to make their responsible choices?

Ms. ROSEN. It is a very good question, Congresswoman. And I

think, though—I have a lot of friends who will not let their children buy or listen to stickered records. I think that is an appropriate choice for them to make. It is quite clear, though, when you

get to 16 it is awfully tough. As a parent, I anticipate it. As a godparent, I already see it.

There are messages—and by the way, over 70 percent of all

music is bought by people over the age of 18. So this is not an issue

about children.

But teenagers are tough. They hear about tough issues from a

lot of different places. And I think that the best thing we can do

is hope that a parent who decides to let their teenager listen to or

buy labeled recordings will help that teenager put that music in

context. And if it is a popular artist, the teenager’s music choices

can say a lot about what is going on in that kid’s life right now.

Music has historically for teenagers expressed emotion and

served as an outlet for their feelings. I personally as a parent think

that, you know, that can be a gift. If I know where—what kind of

music a teenager is attracted to, I am going to get more of a signal

about what is going through their own life, but I think it is a parent’s responsibility to determine whether a 16-year-old is mature

enough or not mature enough. And many 16-year-olds have a lot

50

of maturity and a lot of sophistication. They may have been welltraveled and have a lot of contact with adults. And others may be

younger emotionally. And I think that is a parent’s decision to

make.

Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate that answer, and I can’t wait to tune

in about 12 years from now when you are going through this with

your kids. It is unbelievably hard to do. And, you know, I come

back to my magic pill. I wish there were a magic pill. There is no

magic pill. I certainly know that we can’t legislate the answers, but

I also worry that normal, nonperfect parenting skills may not be

enough either.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. UPTON. I recognize for 5 minutes the chairman of the full

committee, Mr. Tauzin.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jack, my old

buddy, take us back in history. How were movies rated before the

current rating system?

Mr. VALENTI. Say that again.

Chairman TAUZIN. Take us back in history. How were movies

rated when I was a kid coming up?

Mr. VALENTI. When I took over this job, it was in the Mesazoic

era.

Mr. UPTON. Turn the mike on.

Mr. VALENTI. I thought I could lift my voice to meet you, Mr.

Chairman.

There was in existence then the infamous Hayes Code. That

came in the 1930’s.

Chairman TAUZIN. Is that the one where you had to have your

foot on the floor?

Mr. VALENTI. That is right. If a man and a woman were in bed,

even if they were married and they wanted to become affectionate,

each of them had to have a leg on the floor, which means you had

to be Nadia Comeneci in order to deal with that.

Chairman TAUZIN. What I want to know is, what were the rating

systems. I remember movies were rated X.

Mr. VALENTI. They didn’t have a ratings system. You had to get

a seal of approval. If you got no seal of approval, you could not get

a play date. Why? Because the studios owned all the theaters.

If you are looking for a villain, the Department of Justice in

1950, under the antitrust laws, forced the dissolution of the ownership of theaters and studios and with that the whole Hayes Code

began to collapse.

Chairman TAUZIN. In those days, I remember movies were rated

X. When did that happen? I remember X-rated movies.

Mr. VALENTI. That came in with the rating system in 1968.

Chairman TAUZIN. We couldn’t go look at those.

Mr. VALENTI. X meant under 17 couldn’t get in the theater. That

name was changed because it was taken over by the pornographers. And we changed it to NC-17, which is very difficult to exploit.

Chairman TAUZIN. What I am trying to get at, though, the movies started out from a position much where Ms. Rosen and the recording industry is today, that there were just one category of movies that you were going to say was genuinely not available to young

51

people. And then we went through a process where parents, basically, as Ms. Harman pointed out, were looking for a little differentiation.

I remember when we went to Peoria, that was a message we got,

a message you got, the cable industry got. You remember that

meeting. Parents basically said, ‘‘Look, we appreciate you giving us

the general rating. We’d like a little more specificity about what

those movies contain so we can make some differentiated choices

for our family viewing and our movie choices.’’ And you responded.

You did that. You listened. Government didn’t tell you you had to

do it, although there was some pressure in the Senate with some

bills floating around. But you and the rest of the industry basically

said, ‘‘Okay. Parents want a few more tools, a little more information, some differentiated ratings and some information about why

we chose a particular rating. We are going to give them that, because we want to be responsible and we want parents to have as

many different tools to manage the entertainment for their children and their lives as we can.’’ And frankly, you ought to be credited for that. You got burned over in the Senate and at the FTC

for a charge that you are, however, still marketing material to

youngsters that was inappropriate for them. And you took 12 important steps since then to correct that. And I commend you for

that.

But the reason I wanted to take you through that was because

I think the recording industry is kind of where you used to be.

And I want to turn now to Ms. Rosen. The recording industry

has taken a position—you have enunciated it quite well today—you

think parents are happy with one general rating that says, ‘‘This

material is explicit enough so that you might want to—if you want

to, you know, say to your children, ‘Don’t buy that stuff. I will not

let you buy that or entertain yourself with it.’ ’’ That was the position the motion picture industry took way back then, and they

moved from that to a differentiated system of advisories to parents

and to the public.

If we had another meeting in Peoria and the recording industry

executives and your association were invited to come and listen to

parents, you don’t believe parents would want a little more information about how violent, how explicit some of this material is

compared to some that is perhaps less violent, perhaps mildly violent or mildly explicit as compared to excessively violent with

sounds of people getting their throats cut and chain saws buzzing

and blood and guts on the ground? You don’t think parents would

ask the same thing of your industry that they asked of the motion

picture industry?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, they certainly might, because I think we would

all like easier choices than the one we have. And it is a clever analogy that you are making, but I think it is not going to be exactly

on point, Mr. Chairman, because what ended up happening with

the motion picture ratings—and my friend Jack will correct me if

I am wrong—is that they went through a process where they said, ‘‘If you have this kind of nudity combined with this kind of language and if you have these depictions combined with that kind of

profanity, it will get this rating and that rating.’’ Essentially in the

visual picture, you have the ability to make those gradations that

52

you don’t in music. And I understand the comment that if you have

a song like, you know, Eminem, that it should be easy. But the fact

is that even Eminem presents gradations and others as well.

Chairman TAUZIN. Let me ask you——

Ms. ROSEN. I think the answer is——

Chairman TAUZIN. Could you not differentiate between excessively explicit, violent and otherwise material and mildly, excessively and—I mean what I am asking is, would it not be possible

to make some division of that warning so that there is a stronger

warning for the kind of stuff that I think you are going to hear a

little bit more about in today’s hearing that gets the same warning

as a mildly explicit form of recording?

And I have limited time, so I want to ask you a second question

and let you answer both. And if that would be possible, wouldn’t

parents, in your opinion, probably ask for that and appreciate it?

And second, are you using the same general label for music and for

music videos?

Ms. ROSEN. Yes.

Chairman TAUZIN. The answer is yes, you are. So that music is

combined with videos today. And there are video depictions, just

like movies and just like video games, that could be explicit and

could be excessively violent or what have you?

Ms. ROSEN. It really does not come up in videos, because videos

are produced for showing on television, and so there are hardly any

videos that get rated like that. So it is really not an issue with

video.

Chairman TAUZIN. But you use the same rating systems for

sounds and the video is my point. Answer the first question.

Couldn’t there be a rational distinction between the most outrageous stuff and the mildly outrageous or perhaps objectionable

stuff to some parents?

Ms. ROSEN. I think the answer is theoretically no. There can’t be,

because it is very easy to say as a general matter what would that

be. But I assure you when you get down to specifics, it is not that

neat.

Chairman TAUZIN. That is the answer that the Motion Picture

Academy first gave us way back then.

Ms. ROSEN. I don’t think so.

Chairman TAUZIN. That is correct. We just had a general label

for a long time. And then they listened to the voices of America.

And what the voices of America basically heard in Peoria was that,

‘‘Look, you do better than that. You can break this down a little

better for us so we can be better advised for our children’s sake.’’

And the Motion Picture Academy responded. And I think the criticism you are going to get and what you got from the FTC is that

maybe it is possible and maybe you ought to give it a good look.

Ms. ROSEN. Let me just say one thing, anticipating both your

own views and the questions of many other people. I have the

sense that people think this is out of some sort of liberal defiance

or commercial defiance that the record industry doesn’t want to go

there. And I assure you that is not the case, that this is a genuine

and thoughtful sense of principle about the meaning of lyrics, the

meaning of music.

53

Tori Amos’ song ‘‘Me and a Gun’’ is about the depiction of her

rape. In my mind, and maybe as a woman, that is about the most

violent thing I can imagine.

Profanity in Eminem talking about the same thing doesn’t make

that more violent. It makes it maybe more distasteful. It makes it

crasser and more obnoxious. It makes it something that we do not

maybe respect as much, but it doesn’t necessarily make it more violent.

Chairman TAUZIN. I will leave you with this one thought, though.

I admit to you that there is a social value in adults learning about

the horrors of rape—certainly men understanding more what

women have to go through when they are subjected to something

as awful as that. But we carefully give parents information about

visual depictions and that sort of thing for the sake of their children. And I think before this hearing is over and before this issue

is complete, I think you may want to reassess that position. I think

you may want to think about a system that differentiates between

the most graphic and the most explicit as opposed to that which

is mildly explicit or mildly graphic.

I yield back the balance.

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. McCarthy.

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is to Mr.

Peeler. There is legislation both in the House and Senate now to

give you, the FTC, the ability to go after the entertainment industry if it markets its products to children, products that are adultoriented. I know you are aware of it. I wonder if you would share

your thoughts with us today about how you make such legislation

constitutional, and if it is law, would it risk the entire rating system altogether?

Mr. PEELER. In response, I have to say this is an issue that all

five of the Federal Trade Commissioners are involved in on a personal basis and have really given a lot of thought to. They have not

yet had the opportunity to review the legislation that you are talking about. And in our most recent report in April, 2000, the Commissioners did say that they believed that the best answer here

would be self-regulation, and that our report, that will be coming

out in the fall, should give the Congress a good indication of how

far self-regulation has gone in the area.

Ms. MCCARTHY. So you might advise us before we act on the legislation to await that fall report?

Mr. PEELER. If we had a request, we would absolutely respond

to it.

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have not reviewed the legislation either, but I

do intend to. I look forward to your fall report and to more input

from all segments of the industry on how we might make improvements. I still have grave reservations about trampling on peoples’

rights, but I am open to your report and your suggestions and more

input from the industry on this important matter.

I thank you and I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. I am going to

ask unanimous consent that the FTC’s September 2000 and April

2001 report on media violence be made part of the record. I accept

it. So ordered.

[The information referred to is retained in subcommittee files.]

54

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Peeler, when will the third report come out?

You said the fall. I am just wondering when in particular it is

going to come.

Mr. PEELER. We are in the process of getting information right

now and going out into the field with studies. So we are hoping to

have it in the mid-fall. But I can’t give you a good target date right

now until we see how much we have got and what it takes to go

through it. When we have that, we will certainly get back to the

committee.

Mr. STEARNS. In the September 2000 report, you identified 55 explicit content recordings and found that all of them were marketed

to children under 17. And then you encouraged the music industry

to cease such marketing efforts and to adopt an industry-wide antitargeting code; is that correct?

Mr. PEELER. Yes. That is correct.

Mr. STEARNS. And how did you advise them to do this?

Mr. PEELER. We did it in the report that we released to Congress

and the White House.

Mr. STEARNS. So you did not contact them; you just issued the

report and hoped that that would be influential?

Mr. PEELER. We have had discussions with all of the industries

that were involved in the report.

Mr. STEARNS. You further note—and I have here that shortly before the report’s release, the Recording Industry Association announced ‘‘Advertising for explicit content and labeling recordings

should not appear in publications, web sites or other commercial

outlets whose primary,’’ that is 50 percent or more, ‘‘market demographics is 16 years of age or younger.’’ So the recording industry

anticipated this and came up with an attempt for explicit content

labeling. But then immediately after the report is released, as I understand it, the recording industry withdrew its anti-targeting recommendations. Is that what you understand, Mr. Peeler?

Mr. PEELER. That is our understanding. And to go back to that,

I think one of the fundamental recommendations that the Commission made, as you indicated, was that that type of targeting and

promotion should stop even when you look at—Ms. Rosen made the

point today—that their label, unlike other labels, is not specifically

age-related. But when you look at our parents’ surveys, even

among the parents who know about the system and approve of it,

about 55 percent of them think it is an age-related system. That

may represent some confusion on the parents’ part, but it is certainly the parents take away.

So we continue to think that those limitations are important.

Mr. STEARNS. So after your report went ahead, the recording industry decided to develop and then they withdrew their anti-targeting recommendations. So my question to you is, Ms. Rosen, why,

after Mr. Peeler and the Federal Trade Commission recommended

it and you went ahead and established recommendations, why did

you withdraw your recommendations and what was the basis for

it? And is the recording industry still targeting to the demographics of 16 years old and younger?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, as a practical matter, the criticisms about socalled targeting of music based on——

55

Mr. STEARNS. No. The question is, they made a recommendation

and you agreed to comply and then you suddenly decided not to

comply, and the question is why.

Ms. ROSEN. There are edited versions of music available for sale

that do not require the Parental Advisory, although Wal-Mart sells

them in their store. And since this system was not age-based, it

was determined that that was not a workable analysis because it

is not an age-based system and it doesn’t take into account edited

versions.

Mr. STEARNS. Are you still targeting to 16 years old and younger?

Ms. ROSEN. Targeting what?

Mr. STEARNS. Well, let me ask Mr. Peeler. You indicated that the

recording industry is targeting demographics of 16 years of age or

younger individuals?

Mr. PEELER. In our September survey, we looked at marketing

plans and we found specific statements, for example, ‘‘target audience, hip-hop, crossover, pop male-female, 14 to 34,’’ ‘‘12 to 34,’’ ‘‘13

to 35’’ and statements like that about who the target was. In our

April report, our review indicated that the product, while we didn’t

seek the marketing plans, our report indicated that the products

were being marketed in essentially the same way.

Mr. STEARNS. So you recommended in September. They came up

and said they were going to change their advertising procedure.

Then they withdrew their plan. April, you went back and confirmed

they are still targeting.

Mr. PEELER. They still appear to be targeting.

Mr. STEARNS. Do you agree with the Federal Trade Commission’s

analysis—yes or no—that you are targeting to 16 years old and

under with this type of music? Just yes or no.

Ms. ROSEN. The answer is no, because every single one of these

recordings were available in edited form, and the FTC has never

acknowledged that.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Peeler, she does not agree with your report in

September. She does not agree with your report in April. Can you

explain why you are right and she is wrong?

Mr. PEELER. Well, again, the recommendation is that each of the

industries adopt a code saying that they will not market rated

products.

Mr. STEARNS. But you are indicating that the recording industry

is still targeting these children?

Mr. PEELER. Based on the information we saw in the April report.

Mr. STEARNS. So, one, they are still targeting; two, they have no

intention to change their advertising; and, three, they disagree

with you and that is where we stand?

Mr. PEELER. In the one area of disagreement on the clean

versions, our information is that most of the sales of these products

are still of the rated version, not the clean version.

Mr. STEARNS. What about her comment that she is editing

versions and things like that?

Mr. PEELER. Well, again, editing—having clean versions of these

products is clearly something to be commended. The question is, in

the advertising, are they marketing the clean version or the rated

56

version and the advertising doesn’t really make a distinction between these two. And again, the evidence we have seen is that

most of the sales are of the unedited version.

Mr. STEARNS. My time has expired, but to conclude, Mr. Peeler,

you are saying that it is still, in your opinion, that they are targeting minors with this material that is either edited or unedited.

Mr. PEELER. That is what we saw in our April report.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Peeler.

Mr. Stupak.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have up here—someone put up here the Pocket Guide Entertainment Ratings. There

are two sides to it here—both sides. So I took a look at it to see

if we could find anything in common here amongst all these rating

systems. One side, we go to movies. Probably the number I could

pick out the best is 13, because that is PG-13. You have your rating

and then PG-13, there is two parts.

And then you go over to video games. And they do not have any

PG-13. They have T for teen, which says, ‘‘Content suitable for

those 13 and older.’’ Then you flip over to the other side and we

take a look at games on the Internet. And they have a TI for teen

interactive, content suitable for ages 13 and older.

And then go to coin-operated video games. There are green, yellow, red. That is about all they have there.

And then music, we have the Parental Advisory explicit content.

And if you ask, you can ask about the lyrics. Why is it necessary

for everybody to have their own separate system of rating? Why

can’t it all be the same? Why can’t it just be PG-13? Why can’t it

be suitable for PG-13 for music, all the way down the line? Why

does it have to be different? So when a consumer goes to buy something, as they will for the holiday season, I am sure, if they forgot

their little handy-dandy Pocket Entertainment Rating card at

home after they sat there and tried to figure it out, they would be

more confused. Why can’t you all do it the same?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. I will a quick shot. I think in a perfect world

having a single rating for everything is clearly more manageable

for everybody. I am a parent and I would agree if you could do it.

I think the concern that we have as an industry are in several

issues. One is while—in fact, all content is not the same. For example, movies are visual. As Hilary has said, music is a very different

experience as to how it is absorbed. It is audio and so forth. Video

games are visual and interactive. And all those things result in

some different experiences in terms of the content, in terms of how

they look and how they feel.

More importantly, one of the concerns that I have with the proposed legislation is that it seems to me to squarely put the Government into the ratings business because——

Mr. STUPAK. We are not telling you to rate it. We are telling you

to label it the same. If it is going to be PG-13 for the movies, be

PG-13 for the recording industry, for the video games, whatever

they might be. I do not think that is rating. We will let you do your

ratings. You have come up with these numbers. PG-13, that is the

rating system used here. What we are saying is, when I go and

look at a box or cassette, I can look in the same spot—or if I am

going to buy this movie—I can look in the same spot, have the

57

same rating, have some understanding of what I am purchasing before I purchase it. I do not think we need a perfect world to be able

to do that, do you? Mr. LOWENSTEIN. No. We do not need a perfect

world. But I will say this in addition, I do not accept the premise,

for example, that if you go into a store and you pick up a video

game that is rated mature for violence, blood and gore, that it is

particularly difficult to understand what that means and that that

is not sufficient information to allow a parent to make an informed

decision, particularly when you add to that that the packaging

itself is quite descriptive as to the content of the game.

So I think in our case, the existing system is quite descriptive.

And again, all the research from the FTC across the board would

suggest it is pretty easy to understand and desirable.

Mr. STUPAK. Well, I am sure you are all going to protect your

own rating system. But do you not think it is a little ridiculous to

try to figure this out when we have to go to try to buy something?

Why do we have to have our own little fiefdom of commercial to

target people? Why can’t you just all use the same? If we are dealing with video or music or movies, it is all your senses, whether

it is visual, audio or whatever. It is the makeup of the individual

to draw from that form of art and take what they want from it. I

do not think we need all this.

Let me ask one more question before my time. Ms. Rosen, in

your statement you said that music should be distinguished from

video products because lyrics are more subjective. While loud music

or tone may exacerbate the imagery created by a curse word or an

explicit violent depiction, these lyrics would not be stripped of their

harmful tone by soft music or soothing background. In my opinion,

this would be like saying that a brutal depiction of a stabbing

would be less disturbing in a movie if it occurred on a nice grassy

pasture as opposed to a crowded city street with rats. How do you

justify that distinction?

Ms. ROSEN. Look at Johnny Cash singing about ‘‘Folsom Prison

Blues’’ and his experience. Look at Garth Brooks talking about domestic violence, or Dixie Chicks’ ‘‘Good-bye Earl,’’ which depicts a

woman murdering her husband. That is country music and people

receive it differently. Look at Carmen or, you know, Tosca. It is certainly the case. ‘‘Killing Me Softly’’ by Roberta Flack is viewed differently. ‘‘I Shot the Sheriff’’ by Eric Clapton is viewed differently.

So, of course, the context matters. Of course, the intensity matters.

And, of course, the genre matters. And if we are all honest with

each other, we know what bothers people the most is hip-hop music

and its profanity.

So what we try to do is recognize that reality in the world and

label that.

But if we had a rating system that suggested that ‘‘Killing Me

Softly’’ by Roberta Flack should be rated for violence, I think we

would all agree that that is really inappropriate and overwhelmingly suggestive.

Mr. STUPAK. Do you believe that ‘‘Killing Me Softly’’ by Roberta

Flack, that song, is different than some rapper who is actually having gunfire going off in the back as he is singing? Do you think that

there is a different degree there or the same degree?

58

Ms. ROSEN. Extraordinarily different, because I think that there

is a lot of hip-hop music that is actually anti-violent using violent

references to get their message across. It requires a level of—— Mr. STUPAK. So the music in the background that is being played

certainly gives a different meaning to the words, to the lyrics. How

is that any different than the movie where you have it, a killing

on a subtle place as opposed to a graphic crowded city street I

used.

Ms. ROSEN. Because in a movie, you can determine whether

somebody is joking or whether they are serious. You can determine

whether somebody is angry or whether they are happy. You

can——

Mr. STUPAK. You also can determine that from music, can’t you?

Ms. ROSEN. Not necessarily.

Mr. STUPAK. You don’t think so?

Ms. ROSEN. Eminem is consistently misinterpreted, according to

him. So I don’t think you can say it is always easy, and I appreciate that you don’t agree with that. It is just that, you know, that

is how creators view this.

Mr. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. I would say to my colleagues, we are going to have

a second round, so I hope they will stay. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Cubin.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would the staff please

give to Ms. Rosen the document I just gave them. I would ask you

to read the highlighted part out loud.

Ms. ROSEN. Ms. Cubin has given me lyrics to an Eminem song

and asking me to read them out loud, which I don’t really want to

do, and so I’m not going to.

Mrs. CUBIN. I can understand that. Pardon me? You are not

going to do it?

Ms. ROSEN. No.

Mrs. CUBIN. And that is exactly what I expected. If what you are

supporting today is so bad that you can’t speak it out loud, and yet

you can’t tell the difference between that and Roberta Flack’s ‘‘Killing Me Softly,’’ or ‘‘I Shot the Sheriff,’’ then there is something

wrong with your thought process, ma’am.

Ms. ROSEN. It is a very good question, and I respect what you

are saying. But I think the fact is that this record is stickered. It

is not.

Mrs. CUBIN. This record is what?

Ms. ROSEN. This record has a logo on it. There’s no reason to defend the lyrics because they are going to mean different things to

different people.

Mrs. CUBIN. I think it’s profoundly——

Ms. ROSEN. And so nobody is trying to fool anybody.

Mrs. CUBIN. Nobody is trying to fool anybody by differentiating

between the song, for example. I have the song here that you

talked about the lady who was raped. And I will read this part. I

will read these lyrics. They are not pleasant. They are not comfortable. But they aren’t so bad that a decent human being isn’t

embarrassed to read them in public. And I am going to tell you,

I thought about—I didn’t want to embarrass you. I thought about

not sending those lyrics down there for you to read. But then I

59

thought, if people don’t know what we are really talking about, it

is easy for you to sanitize the system that you have. That is so vile

and so disgusting, what I just handed to you.

This song, I will enter the lyrics for the record. And I will have

those lyrics entered in the record to prove that there is a distinction, and it is a huge distinction, and you could easily—you could

easily separate that kind of stuff from ‘‘I Shot the Sheriff,’’ from ‘‘Killing Me Softly’’ if you had the desire to do so. I realize that you

represent the entertainers that make their living from their music.

I realize that. And I realize you are conflicted by that because they

all go through your trade organization. But some of the things that

you said—let me find my notes here; that there are gradations in

movies that there are not in song, I think those lyrics that you

refuse to read very clearly show that there are gradations in music

just the same, and that they could be—that they could be broken

down into, at the very least, extreme violent and sexual content,

and then what you have now. I think—I know you could do that.

Ms. ROSEN. Well, I appreciate what you said, Ms. Cubin, but as

a practical matter, the sticker as it exists, the parental advisory

logo is already overly broad. It makes clear that these lyrics are explicit.

Mrs. CUBIN. I think that is the problem. That is what I am saying to you. That is the problem. It is overly broad. I, as a parent,

I, as a parent, my children are now 24 and 28 and so, well, I am

lying about that. They couldn’t be that old. I don’t know what got

me there for a minute. They usually say they are about 10 years

younger, and it is easier for me.

And as has been stated before, I agree with Ms. Harman. Parents have to be the ones on the front line. We have to be the ones

that make those determinations for our kids. But there is such a

big difference between a 12-year-old hearing those kind of lyrics

that, again, you refuse to read, and hearing lyrics ‘‘I Shot the Sheriff.’’ I mean, common sense would dictate that.

Ms. ROSEN. Which is why ‘‘I Shot the Sheriff’’ is not labeled.

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, then the song that you were talking about, the

lady who had been raped.

Ms. ROSEN. Also was not labeled.

Mrs. CUBIN. When there is sexual content—now, don’t try to go

there. Don’t try to say that because I presented you with something

so disgusting you couldn’t read it, that all of the music that is

marked like that is that extreme. It isn’t. And that is the problem.

We can’t differentiate as parents until after we buy the music how

bad it is. And we would like to be able to differentiate how bad it

is before we have to buy the music by having more levels.

My time is out, but I don’t have any desire to force that upon

the industry, but I can tell you that the force is large and that the

pressure is large and that if the industry doesn’t try to accommodate parents in some way this way, then it will happen.

Mr. STEARNS. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned earlier in my opening statement that I had to excuse myself

because I was speaking to three groups of 40 of Boy Scouts that

are in the area for a jamboree. But I did my own little poll, by the

60

way, and as scientific as I can do. Out of each one of these groups,

you know, 100, 120 Boy Scouts, various ages, how many had the

Eminem CD. And it was amazing to me, out of this group, how

many raised their hands. I would say about a good third of each

one of the groups. Well, maybe not a third. About 20 percent of

each one of the groups raised their hands.

My next question was to the cadre of scoutmasters, parents, surrounding these kids. How many of you, as parents, were with them

when they purchased it and have listened to it? One. And I think

that really begs the question of the discussion here today as we

want the warnings on here to warn the parents that there is something graphic, explicit in here that may not be appropriate for children of certain ages. So the discussion—if we can agree to that,

that perhaps maybe a 10- or 11- or 12-year-old shouldn’t be listening to Eminem. I’m not sure anyone under 17 should be listening

to some of these lyrics. The issue then becomes, you know, how do

we get the message to the parents, or what responsibility should

there be on the store owners, like Wal-Mart?

We had a staff member of this committee that went out and observed kids buying whatever at Best Buy, just went to kind of observe. There are absolutely no restrictions. Young kids obviously

13-, 14-years-old, buying material with parental warnings on it,

without parents there, without a blink of the eye.

So I want to ask Mr. Peeler and Ms. Rosen, where do we go? If

we have a generic general warning of explicit labels, could we draw

the line at a certain age and just say for you to be able to buy this,

you need your parents warning? Or you need your parents here to

purchase it? Would that be acceptable to place that type of restriction on a retailer? Would it be legal? Constitutional, I mean.

Mr. PEELER. Well, I think you have two industries here. The

electronic games industry and the motion picture industry have, on

a self-regulatory basis—— Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Peeler, do you have your speaker on? Yes. I

guess you do.

Mr. PEELER. Yes. I hope so. As I was saying, you have two industries here, the electronic game industry and the motion picture industry that have been, on a self-regulatory basis, working with retailers and working with theater owners, trying to implement exactly that type of system. And that is probably the best approach.

Mr. TERRY. All right. Ms. Rosen, let me just point out the other

observation of my very scientific survey. It was the range in ages

in these Boy Scouts. Because some of these scouts are 14, 15, 16.

There are others that were, you know, that were pretty young, 10,

11, 12 range. But they had the CD and they are listening to it.

Are there any statistics out there, not on marketing, but on purchases of—that we would break down specifically in the age group?

For example, this last Eminem, are there any statistics out there,

Ms. Rosen or Mr. Peeler, that say X number or X percentage are

believed to have been purchased by boys, girls, in the 12 to 16 ages

range? Is there any way—is there anything out there, or is there

any way to do it, to get that information?

Ms. ROSEN. No, not really on an album basis, unless the retailers

were to keep track of that information. And I am not aware of any

retailers that do. But, you know, over 70 percent of music is purVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
61

chased by people over the age of 18. And I think that you know,

it is—you can’t help but notice when you make that—have that discussion in a group of Boy Scouts that they are actually in the Boy

Scouts; that they are actually learning a set of values.

There are exterior influences in context by which children and

teenagers learn. And I think that somehow suggesting that if a

teenager that doesn’t get an Eminem CD, he is not going to know

about profanity or about violence, because there is no other place

they are going to learn about it, isn’t realistic. What’s more realistic is to know that there are parents and organizations and other

places, you know, that are going to give people the messages and

the context and the ability to absorb, you know, difficult subjects.

Mr. TERRY. All right. Well, let us—my last question, well, my

time is up. So—my last question, specifically, Mr. Peeler, and to

Ms. Rosen again, at least give us more information on the labels

as a parent. Is there—could we have a warning on here that perhaps makes—says there are 147 uses of explicit language and 47

reference to violent acts on this CD? Can we break it down into

something like that? What’s wrong with giving that level of information?

Ms. ROSEN. I think in theory, nothing is wrong with giving it.

The question is creating it, that what we try and do to let people

know what explicit means. It means strong language or depictions

of violence or sex or substance abuse. But different sentences may

mean all three of those things or four of those things and other

sentences may not. And I think there has just been numerous attempts to try and categorize this with a finer-toothed comb and it

is just too difficult to do. It is not practical. It doesn’t—it is not true

to the lyric.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman

from Oklahoma is recognized, Mr. Largent.

Mr. LARGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have heard almost

everybody on the panel and up here talk about how it is the parents’ responsibility; they are on the front line. They are the ones

that are responsible for passing on the values. We all agree with

that. But I want to speak up as a parent, not as a Member of Congress right now, and just tell you a little bit about what I feel like

as a parent.

You know, I tried to teach my kids not to smoke. And we all

know that tobacco companies definitely marketed tobacco to young

people under the age of 18 in the State of Oklahoma. And I taught

my kids that, too. I never smoked. My wife never smoked. We, you

know, did all that we could. But as a parent now, what happened,

I have a daughter who did smoke. How did she get cigarettes?

Through vending machines that were outside of a restaurant. So I

tried to do the right thing in teaching my kids about not to smoke.

But here a vending machine—all she had to have is the necessary

quarters to put in the machine to get the cigarettes, and she was

doing that.

I don’t know how I could have prevented that or anticipated that.

I try to build into my kids, you know, the right values in regards

to the movies that they watch. We get a subscription as a parent

called Movie Guide that gives a—that does exactly what Mr. Terry

said. Here’s how many times profanities are used or obscenities

62

and acts of violence and rates it for parents. We leave that out for

our kids to review movies.

And so they go to movies and we find out that the theaters will

allow them to go into movies, even when they are rated R. They

let them go in without checking any sort of identification. Blockbuster, you can go to Blockbuster and rent R rated movies, you

don’t have to show any ID for that. Then you find out, even the

movie theaters that say no, you are not 18, you can’t go in. Well,

the kid goes in a PG 13 and then jumps from that theater over to

the R rated movie when the parents aren’t looking or the theater

owners aren’t looking.

So what do you do as a parent to protect your kids? You say— talk about pornography. I mean, this is a real cancer that is eating

at our entire society. You say, well, parents should be the ones that

guard what their kids are watching on television and cable and the

Internet. But then you find out that the statistics say that 80 percent of our kids are first exposed to pornography at school or at the

library, places that you would also think would be helping parents

out to protect our kids. So when we say, you know, parents should

be on the front line, that is absolutely right. But I want to tell you

that—Jack, you talked about raising three kids yourself. Being a

parent today is not like being a parent 20 years ago. It is a whole

different ball game. A friend of mine told me just, when we went

over to vote, that in an avalanche every snowflake claims innocence. Parents are facing an avalanche today, an assault on all the

values that we want to pass on to our kids. Those values are under

attack by the entertainment industry and many other avenues.

Ms. Rosen, I have got to tell you that when I heard your testimony, the one word that came to my mind was shameless. I

thought your testimony was shameless. I think some of the things

that you—you couldn’t even read the lyrics to the song, to a song

that is shameless, that has zero redeeming value for our society.

Zero. In fact, it is negative. And for you to give testimony to defend

that is shameless to me. And I don’t understand it.

My question is, Mr. Tauzin raised a question. He said you also

produced movie videos and that they had the same rating and you

said yes. But we don’t have a problem with the movie video, the

music videos. Why is there not a problem with your music videos

that are played on TV, and there is a problem with the stuff that

you put on CDs? Why is there a difference? Why is there a higher

level for what you produce for television versus what you produce

to be sold at retail stores?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, obviously, artists are in control of their own vision and—but there are standards that have—that the FCC has,

or that MTV has for playing videos, and it is relatively common for

videos to meet that standard. And what artists do is create a true

vision, and when that true vision is explicit or outrageous or potentially offensive, they put a sticker on it. They don’t try and hide

the fact that some people will find it objectionable. It is labeled.

And some times, in most cases, there is an edited version of that

music available. Wal-Mart won’t sell labeled products. They will

only sell the edited version.

Mr. LARGENT. Let me ask you a question. Does the recording industry find it outrageous that the FCC has a higher standard than

63

you have to meet with the CD that you sell at your retail store?

Do you find it censoring that you have to meet a higher standard

to produce a music video than to produce a CD? Does that violate

your First Amendment rights to free speech?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, I think that the artists—— Mr. LARGENT. Does it alter the artists vision that they have?

Ms. ROSEN. Well it may, but music actually starts with the

music, and the video tends for a secondary interpretation of it.

Mr. LARGENT. But still an artist’s expression that is being edited,

you do not find that offensive?

Ms. ROSEN. I think that artists are entitled to put their true vision in a recording. And so that if there are certain compromises

that they have to make to get commercial recognition on MTV or

sold to Wal-Mart, some of them are willing to make that and some

of them are not, and we will support artists either way with that

decision.

But I think you just heard Mr. McMillon say that you know they

would rather there be a rating system. So this is not a commercial

decision on the part of the music community. The decision is based

on a sense of principle and, you know, I understand that people

don’t agree. But it is one based on principle.

Mr. LARGENT. Well, we could sit here and have a pretty eloquent

argument about whether it is a marketing decision or whether it

is an artistic expression. And I would tell you that I believe that

it is purely a marketing decision that is being made by the companies that are producing this. Maybe not by the artist, but by the

people that are producing this; that are, you know, stamping out

the CDs. It is a marketing decision. It sells. Let me see. I had some

other questions.

Ms. Rosen, I had one other question for you.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. LARGENT. If I could ask unanimous consent 1 minute and

one more question.

Mr. STEARNS. So ordered.

Mr. LARGENT. And that is that you said in your testimony that

words are subject to interpretation, which is why we don’t put labels on books, just like we should not have labels that are age-specific on CDs. Can you tell us any names of any books that are

being—inappropriate books that are being marketed to children

today?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, you have to define ‘‘inappropriate.’’ I can’t

make a decision about what is inappropriate. I am just going to

make—my point is that books are not labeled. You know, the final

scene in Harry Potter—I don’t want to ruin it for anybody who

hasn’t read it, but it is a murder scene. I mean, there is—you

know, I won’t let my kids watch Bambi because, you know, the

mommy gets killed. There are things that young people are exposed

to all over the place that your natural sensibility wouldn’t go to

saying is inappropriate because it doesn’t have an angry beat or it

doesn’t have the profanity that some of the music does.

So I think it is clearly true, Congressman, that there is a different standard that we accept, and we accept our responsibility.

We put labels on it. I am—what I am simply saying is that to go

to a more graded kind of level, with further interpretation is difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
64

ficult and with that—in that regard, I urge you to consider books

as the best analogy.

Mr. LARGENT. But again, my point is—and I will close with this,

Mr. Chairman, is first of all, in your testimony, you said that inappropriate books that are being marketed to children are not labeled.

Ms. ROSEN. I didn’t say that. I said——

Mr. LARGENT. Well, we can go back and listen to the testimony.

That is what you said. I wrote it down when you said it.

Ms. ROSEN. Well, if I said that, that is not what I meant and

that is not what my testimony says.

Mr. LARGENT. Second of all, the point I would say that your industry is also making a decision to basically edit what they are

doing in terms of what they produce on TV versus what they stamp

out on a CD. So you guys are already doing what you are saying

you are opposed to doing by the production of your music videos.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. If my colleagues

want to stay around, we can continue. We have a very important

discussion here, and so we will start another round here.

Ms. Rosen, you said that you would not let your daughter look

at the movie Bambi. Is that what you just said to us?

Ms. ROSEN. I did.

Mr. STEARNS. And why won’t you let her look at the movie

Bambi?

Ms. ROSEN. Because I find it too sad.

Mr. STEARNS. Because the mother gets killed, I think.

Ms. ROSEN. Yeah.

Mr. STEARNS. Yeah, okay.

Ms. ROSEN. That is my value.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. That is your value. Would you let your

young children go to Best Buy and buy ‘‘Kill You,’’ by Eminem?

Ms. ROSEN. No.

Mr. STEARNS. And why won’t you let them do that?

Ms. ROSEN. Because that is my value.

Mr. STEARNS. Is your value, you think, so different than most

mothers?

Ms. ROSEN. I really don’t know. You know, I am a mom in a

minivan and I disagree with everything Ms. White said, so I am

willing to acknowledge that different people view different things

differently.

Mr. STEARNS. Let me ask you this. Do you think the tobacco companies should be prohibited from marketing to children, to teenagers?

Ms. ROSEN. I don’t really have an opinion one way or another

about tobacco, Congressman. But I will tell you that art is different

than tobacco.

Mr. STEARNS. No, but as a mother now, would you think it is

okay for the tobacco companies to market to teenagers, tobacco?

Just yes or no.

Ms. ROSEN. As a mother, I think it is my responsibility to instill,

as Jack says, the moral shield in my children to resist all sorts of

temptations that I believe are unhealthy for them.

65

Mr. STEARNS. So you think it is okay then to market to children

tobacco. That is what you are saying.

Ms. ROSEN. I didn’t say that.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Just yes or no, is it wrong or right in your

opinion?

Ms. ROSEN. I don’t know enough about it. I don’t have a view.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. But the FTC has said categorically that your

industry is marketing, targeting 16-year-old people, children and

under, and yet, you will not let your daughter listen—look at the

movie Bambi. So I find it—the chairman, Mr. Tauzin, indicated to

Mr. Valenti what the system for talking about films back there

was, an X, and it was very simple. And what you have here, as he

has indicated, is very simple, and you might have to move a generation forward. And I think that is what the chairman is trying

to indicate to you.

Now, you don’t seem to agree. But I think from your own personal testimony, I would say to you that your industry should consider what we are suggesting here is that we might need something

like the Federal Trade Commission. And then second, more importantly, that I think you are going to have to address the idea that

Mr. Peeler said, that you are still targeting to the 16-year-old individuals or younger.

Ms. ROSEN. May I respond to that?

Mr. STEARNS. Oh, sure. Go ahead.

Ms. ROSEN. As I said before, with as much respect as I have, the

fundamental premise of the FTCs accusation is incorrect. We do

not create an age-based system here. So we are not determining

what is appropriate for any age. So I—you know, it is my great—— Mr. STEARNS. But you just said that you would not let—how old

are your children?

Ms. ROSEN. Two-and-a-half.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. But if you had an 8-year-old, you said to me

you would not let that child go to the store and bring home ‘‘Kill

You’’ by Eminem. That is what you told me.

Ms. ROSEN. I think still not at 8.

Mr. STEARNS. Well, okay. But your industry has been targeting,

the Federal Trade Commission says, whose responsibility it is, to

people who are 16 years or older.

Now Ms. White, I am going to come to you. You indicate in your

testimony that you have written questions to the Motion Picture

Association, and I have got the 12—I have got seven in front of me.

While I talk to Mr. Valenti, could you come up with two of the

questions that you would like answers this morning, and I will ask

them for you and we will see if we can get an answer.

Ms. WHITE. I appreciate that.

Mr. STEARNS. Because, you know, that’s what my job is, to let

the poor constituent have the power of me.

Mr. Peeler, when you issued your report in September and also

in April, there was no response, and then they started to respond

and then they didn’t, the motion picture—the record industry. But

the Motion Picture Association did indeed respond; isn’t that correct? And Mr. Valenti has indicated they went ahead and responded. And I guess the question is, to Mr. Valenti, when you

came up with these new guidelines, as a result of the report, you

66

believed and agreed with the Federal Trade Commission. Is that

the assumption that you said that you thought they were right and

you wanted to correct that matter?

Mr. VALENTI. I believe that there were certain marketing practices that were revealed in this report by our member companies

that I found indefensible, yes.

Mr. STEARNS. So you found them indefensible, and you did something about it.

Mr. VALENTI. Well, we put out our 12-point set of initiatives to

try to rectify what I thought was some chasms that existed in the

marketing plan to some of the companies. And I must say that I

had 100 percent cooperation from these member companies, and

they all agreed to these initiatives, which they are now complying

with.

Mr. STEARNS. Has your industry witnessed any marked effect

from the new marketing practice it has adopted since September?

Mr. VALENTI. I have heard from the companies that they have;

that it is costing them money in their marketing practices now

that—I do not know the extent of it. But it has been written in the

press as well.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Ms. White, my time has expired, but I want

to give you the opportunity to ask Mr. Valenti two questions that

you feel are very important.

Ms. WHITE. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. STEARNS. And we’d like Mr. Valenti to give a yes or no, if

you could.

Mr. VALENTI. I will answer any questions anybody wants to ask.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay.

Ms. WHITE. Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. Put the mike right close to you, Ms. White. Thank

you.

Ms. WHITE. The first question that I get asked a lot by parents

is about previews. Will the movie industry agree to show age appropriate previews at a movie, so if a child and a parent go to see

a G-rated movie, they will only see a preview for a G-rated movie?

If they go to see a PG 13 movie, they will only see previews for PG

13, et cetera. That’s question number 1. Is that part of your 12-

point plan?

Mr. VALENTI. If you read our 12-point set of initiatives we say

plainly and clearly that we do not intend to have R-rated movies

in a trailer in a theater playing a G-rated movie. That is what the

initiative says. A number of our companies have extended that.

That is on their own initiative one step higher on PG movies.

Mr. STEARNS. Aren’t you talking about previews?

Ms. WHITE. I am talking about all levels. He has so far said that

their plan says they will not show R-rated previews before G-rated

movies, which used to happen, by the way when my son was young,

and we took him to G-rated movies. We are very concerned parents. We work really hard at it. He would see previews rated appropriate for all audiences pre-viewing the worst, the most violent

and the most sexual scenes of upcoming R-rated movies. So, so far

the industry has agreed to not to show that kind of extreme, an

R-rated preview before the G-rated movie.

67

However, a lot of R-rated movies are aimed at teens and if they

continue to show R-rated previews to PG 13 movies, they are marketing R-rated movies to teens, and that is my question. He hasn’t

answered that.

Mr. VALENTI. I think I just answered the question, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WHITE. You said no R before G. What about no R before PG

and no R previews before PG 13?

Mr. VALENTI. What I am trying to tell you is that we made some

pledges in our 12-point set of initiatives. The very first pledge said

we would not—our companies would work with theaters so that

there would be no trailers for R-rated movies. R rated for violence

is what the pledge says, in any theaters that is showing a G-rated

movie. That is our pledge. That is what we said publicly, and that

is what we are complying with.

Ms. WHITE. I just want to say that a lot of parents are concerned

about their children at PG and PG 13 movies seeing previews to

R-rated movies.

Mr. STEARNS. Are you happy with your replies?

Ms. WHITE. I am happy that I got a simple reply, but I am not

happy with this policy.

Mr. VALENTI. Well, I think I also said this to Ms. White when

she wrote us. I responded. I responded to every one of her missives

which come to me over the years.

Ms. WHITE. Excuse me. I have only sent you one.

The STEARNS. My time has expired. I think we have given you

both an opportunity and now the distinguished chairman of the full

committee, Mr. Tauzin, is recognized.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jack, I want to

read you a statement that Ms. Rosen makes in her testimony. The

debate over music keeps coming back to the same thing, despite all

of the trappings and new ways to look at the—the fact is that some

people just don’t like the music. And that is a freedom of expression issue. Let me ask you, does the rating system that the motion

picture industry follows, that it has agreed to follow, does it, in any

way, contravene or limit the freedom of expression of movie makers

in America?

Mr. VALENTI. Does it contravene freedom of expression?

Mr. Tauzin. Yeah.

Mr. VALENTI. It’s voluntary.

Chairman TAUZIN. You can make any movie you want, right?

You can make the most violent, the most sexually explicit——

Mr. VALENTI. Absolutely.

Chairman TAUZIN. Anything you want in America?

Mr. VALENTI. Correct.

Chairman TAUZIN. You said about the rating. So the rating system doesn’t say to anybody you are not free to express yourself in

a movie, does it?

Mr. VALENTI. No director, no producer has to cut one millimeter

of his film.

Chairman TAUZIN. If he doesn’t want to. He just doesn’t get the

rating he might like, right?

Mr. VALENTI. That’s right. He may not get the rating he wants,

or he can go to the marketplace, Mr. Chairman, without a rating.

68

Chairman TAUZIN. That is right.

Mr. VALENTI. The strength of this rating system, the reason why

it has withstood challenges in the court is it is not compulsory, it

is not government inspired, it is totally voluntary.

Chairman TAUZIN. And as a result it doesn’t limit freedom of expression. And it gives out a great deal of information that parents

and others can use in deciding whether to take their children to

that movie or watch it, right?

Mr. VALENTI. That’s right. And Mr. Chairman, and also point out

that I know in one of the bills introduced in this House and in the

Senate, they refer to adult-rated movies. That is a misnomer. The

adult rating category is NC 17. The R rating is not adult rated because children can get into an R-rated film.

Chairman TAUZIN. Thank you, Jack. The other question I want

to ask you is it difficult for the industry to make those ratings

work? Is it difficult to figure out which movie gets an R and which

one gets a PG 13 or whatever?

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir, it is.

Chairman TAUZIN. It is difficult, isn’t it?

Mr. VALENTI. It is difficult.

Chairman TAUZIN. But you do it.

Mr. VALENTI. Because you are dealing with subjective—it is subjective.

Chairman TAUZIN. But you do it. It’s difficult, isn’t it?

Mr. VALENTI. Yes, sir. It is.

Chairman TAUZIN. Now let me go to you, Hilary, because that

was your word.

Ms. ROSEN. I knew where this was going.

Chairman TAUZIN. Ms. Rosen, that was your word. You said

maybe parents would like us to differentiate between the music you

wouldn’t read to us—and by the way, if you were going to read—

if you were about to read it, I just told Ms.——

Mr. VALENTI. I think you are using me as a stalking horse, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman TAUZIN. Yes, I was. But you were a good one and I appreciate it.

Ms. Cubin gave you some music. If you were going to read it, by

the way, I was going to stop and ask as a point of order that we

give a parental warning to everyone. I read that stuff.

Ms. ROSEN. As would be appropriate.

Chairman TAUZIN. And I thank you for not reading it. But these

are your words, that, well, parents may like us to differentiate between the most violent, the most explicit and something else. But

it’s too difficult. But you see, Mr. Largent pointed out something.

It was pretty interesting. He pointed out that the industry does, in

fact, target videos in a way that they fit television. So music videos

are, in fact, compromised. The vision of the artist is, in fact,

changed a bit so that it fits the television requirements. So I gather

several things from this. One, that is probably difficult, but you do

it. The industry does it. And No. 2, that it is not a matter of principle. It is a matter of marketing. And if you want to get your

music video on television, you compromise. The artists compromise

and he designs it a little differently so it fits television.

69

It is a matter of choice, isn’t it? It is a matter of marketing. If

you want the television market, you change the product so that it

fits the requirements of television. If you don’t want it, you can

make music videos that will never be seen on television. You just

market them some other way.

My point is, that your artists do, in fact, make decisions just like

the motion picture association artists make decisions about what

they want to say and how they want to say it. And they do it for

marketing reasons. I assume some of these artists who produce the

CDs may choose—they may choose to do a CD that doesn’t get that

parental warning on purpose, because they think maybe they will

sell more CDs to a different class of people. And others choose instead to accept this warning on their music because they want

their vision, however violent or however expressive it is. They want

it, exactly as it is, unaltered, unfettered by any government or association telling them that what to say, how to say it. And that is

their right.

And by the way, I will fight with you, alongside of you for their

right to do that if they want to do that. But the point I am making

is that all of those artists are just like the artists in the Motion

Picture Academy. They make choices about whether they produce

that CD or the one you wouldn’t read or ‘‘Killing Me Softly With

His Song.’’ And they make it based upon whether or not they are

going to get that label or not. It isn’t a matter of principle. It is

not a matter of limiting freedom of expression, isn’t it. It is really

a question of is it too difficult. I mean, that is the defense you

make to a more differentiated rating system. It is too difficult. That

is really what it gets down to, isn’t it?

Ms. ROSEN. There are so many places to go with that question.

Chairman TAUZIN. Well, just take it anywhere you want to go.

Ms. ROSEN. And it is a thoughtful question that deserves a

thoughtful answer. And you, know despite the jokes, this is a serious issue, and I understand that. I am not exactly sure what it is

you are asking for because if you have a rating system like the Motion Picture Association, where they basically rate everything, they

are 500 movies a year?

Mr. VALENTI. 650.

Ms. ROSEN. 600 movies a year, compared to the music industry,

which commercially releases about 370,000 songs a year, just commercially. And then of course we know—— Chairman TAUZIN. You are saying it is more difficult, music is

more difficult?

Ms. ROSEN. Let me keep going here. So if you did it in the context of everything—there should be a rating system for everything,

so there was G-rated music and R-rated music and X-rated music

or NC 17, then you get to a place where you are really making

value distinctions between Johnny Cash.

Chairman TAUZIN. No, no, no.

Ms. ROSEN. Let me just keep going for a second.

Chairman TAUZIN. I don’t want you to go there because you are

suggesting that we are asking you to make value distinctions that

would censor or limit free speech. I want to be very clear about

that. I am only asking whether or not you haven’t already agreed

that, difficult as it may be, that you rate some music one way and

70

rate some music differently. You have already agreed to that. The

only reason you don’t differentiate even more is that it is too difficult. Is that correct?

Ms. ROSEN. It is not that it is difficult because nobody wants to

work hard. It is difficult because it is too subjective. And I

think—— Chairman TAUZIN. Well, Jack said the same thing. Jack said that

the reason that it is difficult to rate movies is because it is so subjective.

Ms. ROSEN. But there is more data for movies.

Chairman TAUZIN. But they do it.

Ms. ROSEN. There is more data in movies. But let me go to what

that would result in, because if the goal is to say, well, I mean,

what’s the goal? To say that—— Chairman TAUZIN. The goal is to simply give parents a little

more information about how violent, how explicit this movie is as

compared to literally to separate the varieties of this kind of music

from one another so parents can know.

Ms. ROSEN. Frankly, that is not an issue that comes up.

Chairman TAUZIN. The movie industry did that. They went

through this same process and they went through the same grueling, horribly difficult process by which those of us in our positions

who desperately want to protect the right of your artists to their

free speech in whatever form they want to use it. And I say it

again. I will defend, as we should all do, to the death, the right of

every artist in your association to make whatever music they want

to make. But the music industry went through the same process

and concluded, I think correctly, that Americans deserved a differentiated system of knowledge about what this music contains;

the videos contained, rather. And I am suggesting to you, I am telling you, if we did another meeting in Peoria and invited your artists to come and the parents of Peoria to come and sit down with

you in an open forum, you would get an earful. You would get an

earful from those parents like you are kind of getting an earful

from some members here, not because they don’t think your artists

have a right to make the music you won’t read today, but because

they simply think that music, as compared to a lot of other music,

is so different, perhaps it ought to be labeled extraordinarily different from a lot of the other music that still gets an explicit parental warning category. That is all.

There is a huge difference between some of that stuff. And as difficult as it is, difficult as it was for the movie industry to do it,

maybe it is in the best interest of the recording industry for marketing purposes for the good of its relationship with its audience

and the consuming public of America, and for the good of parents

like yourself who are concerned about their children, that this is

just one more useful tool the industry could give parents to literally

do what you agree is a much more difficult job of raising kids

today.

Let me conclude with a thought. You used the word ‘‘killing

me’’—the music ‘‘Killing Me Softly’’ as an example of music that

shouldn’t be rated. It has got a good message in there. You know,

the song is about someone who is hurting. And it literally says he

is ‘‘killing me softly with his song, with his words.’’

71

And there are parents in America who think some of this music

is killing this children softly. It is killing their value systems, killing their innocence. It is killing their sense of where they are in

the cultural growth curve. And they would like to know a little bit

more about which of the stuff has that potential and which doesn’t

before their kids go out and buy it.

And I just will urge you one last time, I don’t want to see our

committee or the FTC regulating your industry any more than I

wanted to see it regulating the video industry. Jack will tell you

I stood against the Senate bills and I will stand against legislation

to regulate you here. But I ask you again to listen to the voices of

American parents, as you heard it today from these members, and

I know you hear it from the Senators as you would hear it in Peoria, and give this a second look. I think you might come to a different conclusion, as difficult as that may be.

Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I spend a lot of time up here, and

this industry is the benefit of a lot of good public policy from this

Congress and this committee. It is my nature to be a compromiser.

I would love to be able to sit here and tell you and tell this committee that we can do what you want if, in fact, there was something specific about it, that we could get our arms around. But I

think it is not easy for me to sit here and tell you that this is a

decision based on principle.

We have already heard from Wal-Mart that we would sell more

if we did what you are saying you want. It is not that—it is not

that we don’t want to do the work. It is not that we don’t care. Our

industry is full of as many parents as this Congress is full of.

These are very extraordinarily delicate and interpretive and subjective issues, and we think we are doing the best that we can in

terms of how we inform people. We don’t want anyone to feel fooled

by the rating system they have. That’s why we deliberately make

it as broad as we do.

I sat here and said, as I have said publicly for the last 3 months,

the FTC was right to tell us that we weren’t implementing our

guidelines properly and we have to do a better job at that. But I

have too much respect for this committee to walk out of here and

have you walk out of there and think that you have told me something and now I am going to go do something. The FTC report in

the fall is probably going to criticize us just as much as the last

two have. And I—that is not something that makes me happy. It

is just a fact of life because of this difference.

Chairman TAUZIN. I appreciate that, and my time has expired.

I am going to yield back. I am not—I didn’t come here today to tell

you what to do. I came here today to ask you to listen to the voices

of American parents. And that is a good request. It is the same request I made to the video industry when they were faced with similar criticism and similar bills in the Congress to actually tell you

what to do. I don’t want to be there. I want to help defend against

that relationship between the government and our people. I think

the First Amendment was designed to protect you from us in that

regard. And I respect it for that.

I am not here to tell you to do a doggone thing. I am here to ask

you to listen a little more carefully to the voices of American parents. That’s all.

72

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady

from Wyoming, Ms. Cubin.

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. First of all, Hilary, I want you to know

I think you have earned your paycheck today. And you have done

a good job of explaining your industry’s position, and we do just

have some legitimate disagreements. But that is okay. That doesn’t

mean we can’t continue to work together and try to make everybody better for having done that. I want to just add one little point

and then we are all close to being free to go.

Off the Grammy dotcom Web site I was curious, as I mentioned

earlier, about—that album Eminem’s album that won best rap

album of the year, got the Grammy for that. I wanted to know

what—how Grammy winners are selected because, you know, I

didn’t know that. But they are selected, as you know, it is a most

prestigious award, and it is awarding—it is awarded from the

Academy’s voting membership to honor excellence in the recording

arts and sciences. It is truly a peer honor, and sales and chart positions don’t have anything to do with it.

I think that an album like the one—and by the way, I would not

have let you read that either. I wouldn’t want to embarrass you

like that and I would have stopped you if you had started. But the

album that has words that neither you or I will speak in public to

be the best rap album of the year sends such a bad message about

whether or not your industry does care about our kids. And I believe you do. But it really sends a message. I don’t need to say it

anymore. Thank you all for being here. This has been a grueling

hearing.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. Thank you. I have got one follow-up comment and a

follow-up question to you, Ms. Rosen. One is we talk about the

level of subjectivity, and you know it is kind of like art. You know,

where do you draw the line. But they have been able to do it in

the movie industry to some extent, and I think that is why they

are here, to kind of show that they have been able to take something subjective and do something objective with the rating. But

you can’t convince me that you get 10 reasonable folks in a room

and they can’t tell the difference between ‘‘Killing Me Softly With

His Song’’ and ‘‘I am going to choke this radio announcer, this principal, this student body, the counselor, get me the machete from

O.J. I am going to make everyone’s throats ache.’’

You can’t tell me that is so subjective that we can’t tell the difference in the meanings. And then you go on to the course of this

song if I am going to kill you and then some other graphic lyrics.

You can’t convince me that 10 reasonable people can’t see the difference between those two sets of lyrics. That just doesn’t make

sense to me. But let me—that is my comment.

Now, here’s my question. You have mentioned how there is the

cleaner or edited versions of these songs or CDs that are also marketed. As much as I love music, it is—it used to be my hobby. I

almost saw every concert that came through Omaha, Nebraska,

and there used to be a lot more than there was now. So I mean

rock and roll was—I know it. But now I don’t get to buy that much

73

music. And like I said, I think the only rock and roll CD I have

been able to buy to Smash Mouth, because my son liked that song

‘‘All Star’’ so much.

But if I walk into Best Buy today, how do I know, as a parent,

an edited version versus a nonedited version? How well are those

marketed? And in what percentage relative to the unedited version

is an edited version also distributed?

Ms. ROSEN. That is a good question. The edited version is indicated on the top spine where it has the album information in a

store, so it won’t have the parental advisory level, and it will say

‘‘edited version’’ on the top spine.

Mr. TERRY. All right. And then how, in what percentage or what,

some objective measurement is an edited version also distributed

relative to the unedited version.

Ms. ROSEN. Well, the—another good question that—the way it

works is this a record company makes music available to retailers.

And buyers who work for Mr. McMillon and other stores around

the country then place orders with the record companies for their

own stores. And so it is really up to the retail store to determine

the mix that they want for their own community and their own

stores.

Wal-Mart, for instance, through their distributors, won’t order

any music with a parental advisory label. Other stores order more.

The fact of the marketplace is that—and Mr. Peeler mentioned this

before. Most stores order more of the labeled version than the edited version because that is what they believe will sell to their consumers. But we make both available to them.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that you make both available. But just—

I am curious to know an objective measurement of how many of the

edited versions are out there versus the unedited. And I do realize—I appreciate your comment that the retailer makes that decision.

Ms. ROSEN. I don’t have those numbers.

Mr. TERRY. Is there a measurement out there, so if I ask you

could you get that to the committee?

Ms. ROSEN. I don’t think there is one, but I will check.

Mr. PEELER. Mr. Terry, our report has a figure, 90 percent.

About 90 percent of sales are the explicit version.

Mr. TERRY. All right. Because that—I will thumb through once

in a while when we go into Best Buy, and I have got to tell you,

at least at Best Buy, unscientific, by any means, I don’t even remember even seeing an edited version of some of these. And again,

that is their decision.

Ms. ROSEN. Well, it is.

Mr. TERRY. I was even surprised that there was——

Ms. ROSEN. You know, it may say something about what the

marketplace requires, but we are making actually an effort in our

advertising now to alert people to when an edited version is available, so that they will know not only that a record has a parental

advisory label, but also that an edited version is available, so that

they can begin to go into stores and ask the retailer for the edited

version, so that if the retailers aren’t stocking them, they will begin

to purchase it for their own customers.

74

Mr. TERRY. Well, that is interesting because that raises a good

point. I walk into Best Buy, as opposed to Wal-Mart, to buy a CD.

I don’t even know if there is an edited alternative that may be

more appropriate under the age circumstances, whatever ages we

have in our children. So, you know, that may be something that we

can also—— Ms. ROSEN. The retailer will always know. But we are making

an effort to make sure the consumers know.

Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that effort. I am also curious—it seems

to me that a lot of the edited versions that I at least hear about

aren’t necessarily entire CDs, but maybe the pop song, the hit song

off of that CD. Is that accurate, or is that the edited version is usually just that one or two songs versus the entire CD?

Ms. ROSEN. Well, no. But sometimes there are albums where

there is just too much profanity to edit, so they will take a song,

a whole track off an album. So people—they try and make an effort

to sort of be responsive. But if it is just a single song it would be

a single, not an album.

Mr. TERRY. Okay. And the Eminem CD that we listened to prior

to this hearing, there is probably no edited version of that because

I think it just probably would be a silence for 60 minutes.

Ms. ROSEN. There actually is an edited version.

Mr. TERRY. Yeah. Or as Barbara said, just maybe some sounds

of chain saws going in the background.

Ms. ROSEN. There is an edited version.

Ms. WHITE. But if I could say, as a parent, that is a real problem

because the kids are getting basically the same message in the

edited version of some of them, you took some of the words out but

the theme, whether it is misogyny or rape, killing, it is the same.

So a lot of the parents have told me they are upset when they

buy an edited version and it is the same, you know, R-rated, X

rated song with some words taken out. It is a real problem.

Mr. TERRY. Yeah. And just in closing, that hooks up to the point

that I made in my opening that you hear a cleansed version and

as a parent, you go, you know, that is close to a line that I would

draw as a parent, but I will allow it. And then you don’t know that

that is a cleansed or edited version. And then when they go, you

allow them, as a parent, to buy a CD, that that ain’t what they are

buying. So—thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleagues. We have concluded the

hearings. But I thought Mr. McMillon, you and Mr. Lowenstein

have not had the opportunity to answer any questions during this

3 hours that we have had this hearing. So I was going to welcome

your comments before we close. Mr. McMillon, if you had any comments on what you heard, or perhaps any insights that we have

missed, we would appreciate your summation.

Mr. MCMILLON. I rather enjoyed not answering a question, sir.

Thank you. Thank you for having me.

Mr. STEARNS. All right. You are welcome. And Mr. Lowenstein?

Mr. LOWENSTEIN. I have been around long enough to know that

if they haven’t asked you a question at a congressional hearing,

you should get out before you get in trouble.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Well, let me just say in conclusion, there are

two bills in the Senate and there is one in the House that are dealVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:36 Nov 19, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 74844.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
75

ing with this hearing that we have had. I believe most of the thrust

of these bills are dealing with antitrust measures to allow industry

to come together to cooperate to solve this problem. At least one of

the bills in the Senate, but as I say, there are three bills here, so

I think this hearing has not been on the bills, but it is sort of preliminary here, so I suspect you are going to be over in the Senate

very soon for a similar type of hearing dealing with their bills.

I think the conclusion here is that the Federal Trade Commission

came out with a report in September and a report in April and indeed, they complimented the video game industry for what they

were doing, and indicated that they were not targeting children.

Then, they indicated that the Motion Picture Association was, and

the Motion Picture Association took steps, and felt, as Mr. Valenti

said, that they should take steps. But at this point the recording

industry started to take targeting guidelines, but decided not to,

and the Federal Trade Commission has indicated as we stand here

today at this hearing that the recording industry continues to target teenage populations 16 and under, and the recording industry

does not agree with that, and will not attempt to provide any

guidelines. And so with that, what we heard, we thank all of you

for your time. And I think it was a very good hearing, and the committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,

The Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) submits this statement for the

record of the hearing examining the entertainment industry’s efforts to curb children’s exposure to violent entertainment.

VSDA shares with parents the concern about the impact on children of depictions

of violence, and the Association does not believe that children should be able to obtain videos and video games that their parents determine are not appropriate for

them. Accordingly, we are pleased to report that for more than a decade the nation’s

video stores have been doing their part to make sure that America’s children do not

have access to movies rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

and video games rated M by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB)

without their parents’ consent.

Video Software Dealers Association

Established in 1981, VSDA is a not-for-profit international trade association for

the $19 billion home entertainment industry. VSDA represents more than 2,000

companies throughout the United States, Canada, and 22 other countries. VSDA

members comprise the full spectrum of video retailers (both independents and large

chains) and operate more than 11,000 video stores across the nation. VSDA also includes the home video divisions of all major and independent motion picture studios,

video game and multimedia producers, and other related businesses which constitute and support the home video entertainment industry.

Parental Empowerment Programs

The home video industry has for more than 10 years maintained a proactive and

effective program to help parents make well-informed choices on the movie and

video game content rented for their children.

We start with the premise that the best control of entertainment is parental control, and there is no better place than in a home video store for parents to control

the content of the movies and video games to which their children have access.

Video retailers aid parents in making more-informed entertainment choices for their

families through parental empowerment programs that combine ratings education

with voluntary ratings enforcement. They do this by using VSDA’s ‘‘Pledge to Parents’’ program and the similar, company-specific programs used by VSDA members

Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Movie Gallery, and others.

76

1 ‘‘Parents have significant controls over the videos their children rent because of limitations

established by the major rental outlets... Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video, the dominant

home video membership stores, have responded to parental concerns by adopting policies that

give parents the option to restrict the videos rented by their children...[R]enting R-rated videos

usually requires a degree of parental involvement.’’ Federal Trade Comm., Marketing Violent

Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion

Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries, 20-21 (2000). VSDA believes these findings are true also for the vast majority of other chains and independent video retailers, as video

stores of all sizes have effective parental control policies. Also, please note that Hollywood Video

has changed its policy to require that parents must affirmatively give their consent to their children’s rental of R-rated videos and M-rated video games, rather than presuming parental consent in the absence of other instructions, and will shortly have full implementation of this policy.

The centerpiece of Pledge to Parents, established by VSDA in 1991, is a commitment by participating retailers:

1. Not to rent or sell videos or video games designated as ‘‘restricted’’ to persons

under 17 without parental consent, including all movies rated R by the MPAA

and all video games rated M by the ESRB.

2. Not to rent or sell videos rated NC-17 by the MPAA or video games rated Adults

Only by the ESRB to persons age 17 or under.

In addition, many retailers solicit from customers individualized instructions regarding what types of videos can be rented or purchased by family members. Thus,

these voluntary systems allow parents, if they so choose, to be even more restrictive

than any industry- or government-enforced system would be.

FTC Reports on Entertainment Marketing

The September 2000 report of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), ‘‘Marketing

Violent Entertainment to Children,’’ showed the programs of video stores to be the

most effective of any that the FTC examined.1 It did not identify a single specific

instance of a video store renting an R-rated movie or an M-rated video game to a

person under 17 years of age. Regarding the findings in the report on sales of videos

and video games by mass merchant retailers, as opposed to video stores, major retailers such as Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Toys R Us have resolved to work through the

logistical barriers to ratings enforcement in their stores. The FTC’s April 2001 follow-up report, while not focusing on ratings education and enforcement by retailers,

did suggest some improvements in advertising and online marketing practices of

mass merchant and other sell-through retailers (as opposed to video rental stores).

VSDA is reaching out to these retailers to assist them in responding to these suggestions.

Conclusion

VSDA’s Pledge To Parents and other voluntary ratings education and enforcement

programs demonstrate the home video industry’s commitment to the communities

that our member video stores serve. More importantly, they support the rights of

parents to make fundamental decisions involving their children, while emphasizing

the need for parents to take responsibility for what their children watch and play.

The report of the FTC shows that these programs work.

Finally, we must caution against the temptation to use legislation to attempt to

reduce the level of violence in entertainment. Since the FTC issued its report last

fall, we have seen pressure to enact legislation to prevent truthful advertising about

the content of entertainment (H.R. 2246/S. 792), to impose a universal rating for violence in entertainment products (H.R. 1916), and to grant an antitrust exemption

to entertainment manufacturers for activities related to ratings (S. 124). We must

keep in mind that, in addressing the issue of violence in American society, the government cannot infringe the constitutional rights of video retailers and their customers—or of parents to raise their families as they see fit. Ultimately the responsibility for raising children lies with their parents, not the government and certainly

not video store clerks.

We are confident that this subcommittee will conclude that our voluntary efforts

and partnerships between parents and retailers are preferable to government action

in this area.

Thank you for allowing us to share our views with the subcommittee.