Internet Porn Site Regulation

This ATVOD cracking down on sites just found gracie's old website in breach of some rules as well most of the girls who have websites provided by scotty niness

http://www.atvod.co.uk/complaints/determ...acie-lewis

and

Summary

wow just been reading that above and its said they are passing it on to Ofcom so basically they are a snitch for ofcom now

thought atvod were a part of Ofcom anyway that just dealt with websites for tv shows etc

I think AVTOD and Ofcom are classed as "co-regulators", apparently Ofcom designated some of it's duties and powers in relation to regulating video on demand services to ATVOD. But it seems Ofcom are the ones still ultimately in charge and can overturn ATVOD rulings, this as was apparent when Playboy appealed to Ofcom and Ofcom overturned the ruling when ATVOD gave Playboy a fine for showing hardcore imagery free to view without age verification on their website .

Ofcom will be in charge cos they are the Communications Regulator anything electronic communications goes thru them and they have the statuatry powers underpinnned in law

worried about this case as a lot of the girls sites such as lucy anne's Anastasia, Ashley Emma, Tommie Jo and the like are all with them

so if u have any off them i would download alll the content just in case

also where does it leave forums like this as they dont have adult verification and can contain adult content from this MNS case if you have anything of a foot print in the uk even if the servers are not here then they can impose judgements on you

A quick read of some of the rulings on the ATVOD site is quite interesting.

Regarding this case with the Scott Niness sites, they say in one of the rulings that they were informed that the company had been sold to an overseas company, so was now out of their jurisdiction. They looked into this, and basically tore it to shreds. There is a difference between a company selling it's shares, and selling it's assets. Selling shares means little, the company is still UK based and liable, selling assets is a different matter, and may put the company out of their control. They decided in this case that the documentation passed to them was standard documentation for a sale of shares, that had been badly altered to reflect a sale of assets. They basically claimed this was a deliberate attempt at deception. Quite damning!

I saw some twitter chatter last week to do with Scott Niness, but didn't take much notice, I guess it may have been about this business.

As for any effect on the likes of this forum, there are a few clues along the way.
They talk of someone, an individual, having some sort of editorial control, and also of the content being organised and catalogued in some way. Neither of those really applies to a forum like this. Arguably admin has ultimate editorial control, with the mods assistance, but as a discussion forum, it's really a free for all, content isn't really controlled editorially except on a minor basis of what is considered acceptable, i.e controlling rows and name calling etc. Also, the content isn't really organised as such. Yes we have threads which keep things a bit organised, but again it's essentially a free for all, good luck finding that vid that was posted sometime last year Compare the content here to one of the paid websites, and it's a world of difference. Also, this site doesn't host the video content, it's hosted elsewhere, there are just links here, that may make a difference.

There is a pdf which outlines what constitutes an 'on-demand video' site, but I haven't tried ploughing through it yet, but I'm pretty sure this site won't fall foul ... yet!!!

think some of the chatter on twitter was to do with models not getting paid i think more than this case

i was a member of the mnscash affiliate scheme mainly to get free sample pics noticed they had moved to an american one for most of the girls now maybe thats why

(20-10-2013 19:16 )HannahsPet Wrote:  This ATVOD cracking down on sites just found gracie's old website in breach of some rules as well most of the girls who have websites provided by scotty niness

http://www.atvod.co.uk/complaints/determ...acie-lewis

and

Summary

ATVOD shows the perils of sloppy legislation. The original concept was quite simple, there needed to be some regulation of TV like streaming websites, catchup services and the likes of LoveFilm, to stop people setting up TV channels without all those nasty rules and regulations that hinder commercial operators like ITV and Sky.

The original consultation even suggested only about 20 channels - sorry, websites - would be affected.

Power has gone to ATVODs head and they seem intent on regulating anything with moving pictures.

Perhaps ATVOD and Ofcom could explain why Facebook is allowed to show beheadings, or is that different?

I see ATVOD at it again today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26779639

from the scare mongering is to do one thing so they will ban people paying for stuff from abroad so we have to buy there tamed down shit only one thing will happen most users will just download it from torrent sites

^^^ I was reading about this earlier. I am always very wary of these kind of reports quoting their latest statistics, those statistics can be made to support whatever view they are trying to push.

There is a slightly better view of this elsewhere on the beeb website, tucked away on the tech pages :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26783483

It's all really just a re-hash of what Atvod have been pushing for a while now, they are just bringing it to the fore once again with some Daily Mail style headlines, backed up by their selective stats. Perhaps they have seen the way the Turkish government has been acting lately, and they want some of that action!