Quote:Ofcom has a self-interest to control all things necessary in quest for power and won't stop until we achieve our goal

(26-01-2012 02:29 )eccles Wrote:  Ofcom already regulate video on demand. Its just luck that they apply less stringent standards - for now.

Foreign sites that are accused of copyright violations are blocked by ISPs.

The internet gives access to foreign sites that dont abide by UK rules for libel.

Social media sites circumvent High Court injunctions.

The Levensden Inquiry into phone hacking keeps being linked to suggestions that newspapers should be subject to similar control - sorry, regulation - as television, perhaps even regulated by Ofcom.

Its not difficult to see where the control freaks will steer things if they are allowed.

(27-01-2012 11:23 )TheWatcher Wrote:  As has been said many times before, the only reason the babeshows cannot show the same stuff that can be seen on the other channels is that they are now classified as "advertising/teleshopping" channels and therefore come under a different set of rules. I don't think that anyone who watches babestation would argue about this classification.

(28-01-2012 23:44 )arron88 Wrote:  Babestation is not "advertising/teleshopping".

(25-01-2012 16:13 )shylok Wrote:  Read the this crook of shit and weep! OFCON won't be happy until they control the INTERNET too. Very scary stuff from our 'liberal democratic' government's junket loving thugs:

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/tv-research/protecting-audiences/

Quote:TV Censor suggests that video on demand should be censored more like TV than internet

Ed Richards, the boss of Ofcom made a speech to the Oxford Media Convention on the 25th January 2012.

He repeatedly alluded to more censorship for the internet and video on demand in particular. He said:

In between the twin poles of linear TV and the open internet, it becomes quite interesting.

When something looks, feels and acts like TV, but is delivered over the internet and into people's living rooms, we need something that meets audiences' expectations and provides the right degree of reassurance.

It is here that such services intersect with the views and concerns expressed by the participants in our research and where greater assurance than currently on offer may need to be considered.

It seems undesirable for these services to be subject to full broadcasting style regulation -- by and large they belong to a different form of service and come from a very different context. But we do need to consider whether to develop the approach in relation to existing co-regulation for video on demand to offer greater assurance and to ensure there is public trust in the approach to regulation as these services become more and more pervasive and significant.

In the case of video-on-demand services, our research shows that protection of minors and the risk of harmful content is the most likely focus. And our experience of broadcast regulation suggests that privacy and fairness for individuals are also areas that need careful exploration.

In this context I wonder therefore whether there may be a fairly simple opportunity to establish a core set of principles and aims which are held in common across a diverse media terrain with different regulatory environments.

Such a set of core principles could be established between the regulators that emerge from the current debate. They might aim to articulate the minimum standards which we would like to see in the UK, regardless of the nature of the service or its specific regulatory setting.

This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. The Ofcom Broadcasting code is remarkably close to the BBC's editorial guidelines. The PCC Code and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code share many of the same objectives, principles and indeed requirements, although the range of issues in the Ofcom Code is, for obvious reasons, significantly more extensive.
...