Ofcom & The UK Adult Industry

(23-08-2010 08:32 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  What these fools don't seem to realise is, by handcuffing the UK Adult Industry with all these rules & regulations, they're effectively pushing it underground.

A point made very publicly in published submissions to Ofcom consultations. They can help a totally unregulated sector to prosper, or encourage 99% of households to only have access to channels that are UK legal. Their choice.

(07-06-2010 12:38 )DanniPandemos Wrote:  

(07-06-2010 12:08 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  With the opportunity for most people to see fully uncut porn on the Internet/DVD, to script or shoot anything in a "porn style", and not show hardcore content, is just pointless.

Try telling Richard Desmond that

When I made that comment, it was from a director's point of view. If the intention is to produce something more softcore style, like Emmanuelle, then no problem. If the intention is hardcore, then I just don't think censored editions of that kind of material works. If I was involved in directing that kind of content, I would want it to be portrayed on TV as it was intended.

The adult pay-per-view/subscription channels have to make content available, despite the restrictions, so I can understand why they do it. Business is business...

It's before my time, but the previous censorship in the UK of horror films from the 70s & 80s was a similar issue. How things have changed in that genre since...

One of the main reasons I originally started this thread was due to the one-sided view you generally get on this section of the forum.

If you look at the situation objectively, it's clear that there is a collective responsibility for the current situation from the regulators to the companies involved, the girls and the viewers/customers.

In real world business, you focus on getting the product/service right first and the cash money will follow. In this industry, it's usually the other way round. Cash money first, then maybe you get what you want is the general mentality. The end result is a lack of quality entertainment with little variety or creativity. Even on the Internet, with websites OFCOM have no jurisdiction over, this can be an issue.

I've contacted most of the main players in the industry about spicing things up with a new format I created over the past year. Something that would bring the excitement and build up necessary to maintain interest, not only in the special events, but the regular babe channels format. Apart from a few people here and there, so far the response has not been good enough. Some blame the credit crunch, but this was a problem long before the credit crunch arrived. The truth is too many people are blasé about the way things are - and it's contagious. This kind of mindset needs to change.

I've been looking out for the best interests of this industry, but without the right support it will be futile.

Winston, the hints you have been dropping have been intruging but frustrating. Probably to protect your idea you have been cagy about what it actually is. Cant agree with you more that the current formats are very very limited, particularly when looking over old clips. Are the owners of the various babe channels interested in new and exciting formats, artistic challenge and perhaps the odd award*? Or do they just want a safe option that might gain them a few % market advantage? Sadly I suspect many just want to hear about the bank balance.

(* Proper awards, not AVN )

(30-01-2011 01:11 )eccles Wrote:  Winston, the hints you have been dropping have been intruging but frustrating. Probably to protect your idea you have been cagy about what it actually is.

That's not the case, eccles...

The amount of different factors that has to be taken into account is considerable - far too much detail to go into publically, but here are the key points:

* For a start, I was legally advised not to provide full details publically until a deal was agreed.

* Finding out the best contacts for individuals and companies that can be trusted, in any industry, is not easy.

* OFCOM cannot be trusted not to interfere with the live show format I originally intended. This resulted in several amendments and ways it can be done, which took more time than expected.

* Copyright is not an issue. The terms of any potential deal has always been the main stumbling block.

(30-01-2011 01:11 )eccles Wrote:  Cant agree with you more that the current formats are very very limited, particularly when looking over old clips.

The regular babe channels format serves its purpose, so I don't have many issues on that front. It also serves as an ideal basis for other avenues, which is something Cellcast have taken advantage of in particular.

What I do have a problem with, as I've mentioned previously, is censored porn and lack of choice for viewers/customers. OFCOM have obviously had a big say in that, as far as TV is concerned, but too often companies will go for the easy option of "recycled censored porn" instead of thinking outside the box...

(30-01-2011 01:11 )eccles Wrote:  Are the owners of the various babe channels interested in new and exciting formats, artistic challenge and perhaps the odd award*?Or do they just want a safe option that might gain them a few % market advantage? Sadly I suspect many just want to hear about the bank balance.

(* Proper awards, not AVN )

They should be, and some are, but when it comes to negotiations for deals like this, the industry is generally not in line with real world business. This is mainly because they've been used to doing their own thing for so long. As things stand, there is not enough leverage on either side, which usually results in a stalemate situation.

In the betting industry, there are so many different choices for punters. In this industry, there is simply not enough. It's not reached its maximum potential, but the potential is there. Hence, gap in the market. Hence, new format...

Go for it, Winston. I wish you luck.
In my own, very brief, dealings with Ofcon they are a most intransigent bunch; they have their view about porn on UK television and will not budge from that.

I have no idea what you propose to do but suspect that, if it's on television, you will be hammered by Ofcon. If it's a web-based solution then it may lack that eroticism that TV provides. (I fully admit that I may be talking bullshit here).

(02-02-2011 10:54 )Winston Wolfe Wrote:  

(30-01-2011 01:11 )eccles Wrote:  Winston, the hints you have been dropping have been intruging but frustrating. Probably to protect your idea you have been cagy about what it actually is.

That's not the case, eccles...

The amount of different factors that has to be taken into account is considerable - far too much detail to go into publically, but here are the key points:

* For a start, I was legally advised not to provide full details publically until a deal was agreed.

* Finding out the best contacts for individuals and companies that can be trusted, in any industry, is not easy.

* OFCOM cannot be trusted not to interfere with the live show format I originally intended. This resulted in several amendments and ways it can be done, which took more time than expected.

* Copyright is not an issue. The terms of any potential deal has always been the main stumbling block.

You seem to have listed a number of reasons why you did find it necessary to protect your idea.

Non-disclosure and non-compete agreements are nothing new or novel when seeking backers for a novel business venture, particularly if approaching angels with industry experience, or even worse, current operators. And as you say, Ofcom could easily slip in pre-emptive clauses into the next revision of the Broadcasting Code, or start clamping down on a category of material in advance. Noone mentioned copyright, and its a pretty feeble and overrated tool in broadcasting that is easily circumvented. Every sitcom ever since 1960 has been based on Terry and June. There are gentlemans agreements to respect formats, but thats all they are.

Oh, and Good Luck.

Interesting example of how Ofcom moves the goalposts and contradicts itself. Apologies in advance for extensive quotes, but this carries more weight if I dont change it apart from emphasis.

From Broadcast Bulletin 120, pub 27/10/08:
"Ofcom viewed the material. It noted that the broadcast on Tease Me 2 on 17 March from 21:43 showed prolonged close-ups and full screen images of the presenter’s breasts and nipples, which were continuously massaged and stimulated and thrust into the camera. In addition, the presenter was shown lying on her back with her legs apart rubbing and touching her genital area outside of her underwear in a sexual manner before 22:00. There was also a brief sequence where the presenter placed her hands inside her underwear. These sequences were all of a highly sexualised nature."

"Decision
It is a requirement of the Code that content which is considered to be ‘adult-sex’ material must be PIN protected and encrypted (Rule 1.24). In this case, Ofcom carefully considered whether the content complained of was ‘adult-sex’ material. It concluded that in this case it clearly was not."

However the material WAS in breach of rule 1.24 Generally Accepted Standards. Ofcom was particularly concerned that the material was broadcast before 10pm.

So there you have it. Highly sexualised content, rubbing genitals outside underwear and briefly placing hands inside unerwear is NOT "Adult-Sex" material. It might be offensive (that may depend on time) but it does NOT require encryption. Ofcom says so: " It concluded that in this case it clearly was not [‘adult-sex’ material]."

I think going back 5 or so years ago before the babe channels were all grouped together in the 900's section then yes I think ofcom did to a certain degree have the right to heavily monitor them because back then you couldn't really block them as effectively as you can now but since February 2006 when they were all moved to the 900's that then should have been the end of ofcom interference. I am a firm believer that all across the 900 sectors the channels should have the right to broadcast material on an adult nature 24 hours a day as they should be immune to the watershed such is the technology that we have at our disposal and furthermore any other channels outside this sector that broadcast's adult material should be pin protected up until 9PM. We did not have this technology 20 years so offcourse things have to be more restricted but since the advent of the digital era all of what had gone on before should have been abolished and something for the history anoraks to talk about.

I couldn't agree more, SB. I've said on many ocassion that the babeshows need not be subject to a watershed. It just doesn't make sense in their case. Kids access Sky 24hrs a day, so what Ofcom are saying by imposing the watershed on the babeshows is that it's okay for kids to see nudity at night, but not during the day. If it's harmful (as they keep persisting) why does it matter what time of day they see it?