+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Encryption Of Channels (/showthread.php?tid=34632)
Pages: 1 2
RE: Encryption Of Channels - eccles - 02-12-2012 01:38
There is at least one live encrypted babeshow type programme even if it is on Freeview not Sky. That ought to give an idea of what is and is not tolerated by our great masters.
A bit off topic but the Leveson Report recommended a new Press Complaints Commission, itself regulated by Ofcom. And any newspaper that does not sign up to this "voluntary" scheme will be directly regulated by Ofcom.
At the moment Desmonds papers refuse to sign up. If that does not change the Star and Express will be directly regulated by Ofcom. Those papers might feel inhibited from complaining about Ofcom incompetence or bias regulating TV. Other papers, indirectly regulated, might also be reluctant to criticise.
At the least it could be the end of topless models in The Sun, Star, Sport and salacious stories in all the papers.
Back on topic. The BBFC say "sex works" containing simulated activity are generally given an 18 cert. A "sex work" is one whose "primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation", wank material, not a serious film or documentary. They also say something is R18 if it contains "clear images of real sex, strong fetish
material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images".
They do not say how much. ANY of the above are enough for a film to be classified R18. Just one second of clear images of real sex in a sex work, or pissing, or serious BDSM.
The BBFC are not bothered about how many copies a DVD will sell, or whether sex shops will bother stocking it. As far as they are concerned there is a line, and if a porn film crosses the film is rated R18. End of. Profitability is for the producer or distributor to sort out.
Thats the way it should be. A clear line so everyone knows where they stand. No lengthy analysis and arguments about whether a 5 second flash of outer labia is against the rules, or straight fingers held over the fanny being OK but not if they are at all curved.
When it comes to DVDs producers are clear what certificate they want. If they have to they will cut a few frames, even a scene, to get an 18 cert and onto the shelves in Tesco and HMV. Porn producers dont want to be ever so slightly porny, they want the hardest cut they can put together. If its not the sex shops wont sell it, and even if they do their next film wont sell.
On TV though there does seem to be selective blindness. "Dont take the piss and we wont have to spend 4 days putting together a case against you" seems to be the message. A few seconds are tolerated, unofficially, provided its not long enough to get hard to.
That way everyone is happy. The regulator can claim R18 is not being broadcast, not that anyone is asking. Broadcasters can claim they are showing the strongest legally permitted material. Viewers think that a few seconds of hard stuff mean there could be more.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - StanTheMan - 02-12-2012 02:37
(02-12-2012 01:38 )eccles Wrote: Back on topic. The BBFC say "sex works" containing simulated activity are generally given an 18 cert. A "sex work" is one whose "primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation", wank material, not a serious film or documentary. They also say something is R18 if it contains "clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images".
So by that logic the kind of stuff we can see on shows like Sexetcera are R18? It would be a start if all these regulatory bodies could agree on regulations.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - eccles - 02-12-2012 02:44
No because they claim the show is a documentary and the primary purpose is not sexual arousal or stimulation.
I know.
You know.
Ofcom know.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - Scottishbloke - 03-12-2012 04:31
I've said this before and part of me still favours this option seeing as I can't see us getting much of a breakthrough at the moment. What I would suggest is that every single babe channel on the SKY EPG is encrpted.
As good as locked out but put the whole lot together and charge an annual subscription fee of say £10. That way we'd be able to see proper babe shows 24/7 and view them in the manner in which they were intended to be viewed in the first place.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 03-12-2012 14:19
I don't think encryption is the answer. These programmes got to be popular because they were breaking rules and doing something that was looked upon as being a little daring. And at the beginning they did get away with a lot more than allowed today, and because it was breaking rules we loved them. It was the tease of not knowing what we would get to see that's what was appealing, and it got us fans waiting if Danica would flash that lovely pussie. Or seeing how far a 2for1 could go with a lollipop. Start using encryption and we may as well watch one of the many sex tubes from off the internet.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - StanTheMan - 03-12-2012 14:41
(03-12-2012 14:19 )RESPONSIBLE ADULT Wrote: I don't think encryption is the answer. These programmes got to be popular because they were breaking rules and doing something that was looked upon as being a little daring. And at the beginning they did get away with a lot more than allowed today, and because it was breaking rules we loved them. It was the tease of not knowing what we would get to see that's what was appealing, and it got us fans waiting if Danica would flash that lovely pussie. Or seeing how far a 2for1 could go with a lollipop. Start using encryption and we may as well watch one of the many sex tubes from off the internet.
Ex-fucking-actly! That sums up my thoughts on both the babe channels themselves and the idea of subscription perfectly!
RE: Encryption Of Channels - Don Tingley - 03-12-2012 14:43
The idea is to call the shows, not just sit there watching, they have never been intended for that.
Why would all of these channels block themselves from the viewing public (potential customers) just so a minority of people could watch something slightly "harder" than what is shown now for free?
The idea of all channels on Sky being encypted would fail miserably. The fact that this hasn't happened probably shows that the channels know this.
RE: Encryption Of Channels - munch1917 - 03-12-2012 14:51
Try selling the idea of encryption to Cellcast, telling them they must give up their freeview channels in the process, and the huge audience they have, and the big advantage they have over their competitors, just so people can WATCH a girl still not showing her pussy
I suspect they'll choose to stick with the format they have, and keep the freeview channels, and the callers and texters, and therefore the money, it brings!
EDIT : and of course, Cellcast would love the idea of giving for a tenner a year what they currently sell for a fiver a night
RE: Encryption Of Channels - RESPONSIBLE ADULT - 03-12-2012 15:08
(03-12-2012 14:43 )Don Tingley Wrote: The idea is to call the shows, not just sit there watching, they have never been intended for that.
Why would all of these channels block themselves from the viewing public (potential customers) just so a minority of people could watch something slightly "harder" than what is shown now for free?
The idea of all channels on Sky being encypted would fail miserably. The fact that this hasn't happened probably shows that the channels know this.
What would the average length of a telephone call to a babechannel be, 10 mins maybe, cost 15 pounds at least. what do people watch for the rest of the time, We need to be cajoled into calling again tomorrow so they have to persuade us to keep on watching for free.