(08-01-2011 03:25 )chrislatimer Wrote: (08-01-2011 03:16 )Sooky™ Wrote: (08-01-2011 02:19 )chrislatimer Wrote: playboy just leased the epg slots to bangmedia so they could carry on with their shows playboy did not own them.
How could playboy lease out epg slots they didn't own?
they own the slots thats what i was saying, they leased the slots out to bang media but the show was still owned by bangmedia, just on playboys epg slots.
if i am wrong i am wrong but i didnt think playboy took over bang media.
Ofcom have strict procedures in place with regard to who can broadcast under a licence or utilise hours permitted under a licence and who are responsible for content/compliance.
http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/t...ovider.pdf
6) Ofcom considers that a person will normally have general control if that person exercises effective control over the selection of programmes that comprise the service and their organisation into a programme schedule. It is that person who will normally be treated as being the provider of the relevant service and who will need to hold a broadcasting licence authorising its provision.
7) As the licensee, that person will be obliged to comply with all the relevant licence conditions and will be responsible for putting in place adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast, complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes and other requirements. This is the case even if the day to day activities to ensure compliance of individual programmes are carried out by a third party.
They also state that licenses cannot be sub-let
11) The issue of determining who the provider of a service is can arise in particular in cases where a person has access to capacity on a broadcasting platform and enters into an agreement with another person to ‘sub-let’ that capacity. A broadcasting licence cannot be ‘sub-let’. If the ‘sub lessee’ of platform capacity is the provider of the service, they need to hold a licence themselves (i.e. they are not 'covered' by any other person’s licence).
The arrangement between Playboy as licensee and Bangmedia as provider of content should have been in compliance with this guidance otherwise PB would be liable to sanctions.
If Bang Media (London) Ltd and Bang Channels Ltd have gone bust then i would guess that Ofcom have forced this on. Ofcom have a public duty to pursue these companies for the non payment of the £157,250 fine. As long as they could demonstrate to the High Court that by seeking winding up orders would not amount to abuse of process then an order could be granted within 4 weeks subject to representations. The licenses were revoked on the 25th November and taking public holidays into account timescales are about right.
The companies could also have gone into voluntary liquidation but this would still leave there assets at risk against creditors.
Nothing posted at the High Court or London Gazette but i'm sure all will be revealed in the next 14 days. As usual the presenters will be at the bottom of the creditors.