+- 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: Internet Porn Site Regulation (/showthread.php?tid=56934)
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - jerry69 - 10-01-2015 23:29
http://www.wouj.com/decoding-atvod/
listen to this as its worth listening to
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - munch1917 - 11-01-2015 12:22
^^^ Few interesting points raised in there.
(just to clarify since the OP declined to, its a podcast discussion about ATVOD and its focus on porn sites)
Firstly, since when was it required to get a license and government approval to have a website? This is basically what is required for a website that falls under ATVOD jurisdiction, but when was this agreed and discussed in parliament? Never is the answer! (EDIT : arguably not true since ATVOD/'Ofcoms chosen body' is covered by the new regulations in the 2003 Communications Act, but the idea that having a website requires a license, which itself requires a fee, and requires you to be compulsarily regulated, is nonsense, and potentially a flagrant disregard for freedom of speech)
Secondly, and I didn't quite follow this completely, so will need to listen again, but the point was made about how difficult it is to reverse an ATVOD decision, apparently requiring a judicial review. Even OFCOM itself has a fairly simple, and free, initial appeals procedure.
On a related note, the point was also made about someone falling foul of ATVOD, then being barred from posting ANY audio-visual content anywhere on the net, even a harmless holiday vid posted on youtube. I don't know if that is actually the case, but lets not forget, this is an unelected body we are talking about, not the police, they are not a law court!
Last point was that ATVOD rules over content it judges to be 'tv like'. That is, content that the average person may percieve to be like tv shows, or may mistakenly believe to be a tv channel, and therefore may believe to be regulated and controlled (as tv shows are).
Bearing that in mind, the bulk of ATVOD's rulings have been against porn sites. Surely those visiting porn sites are quite clear that this is NOT tv, and is not regulated?
The point made was that there are certain niche channels on tv that offer porn like content, i.e. the babechannels. This then gives ATVOD justification for claiming that people may see porn sites as tv like, and justifies their ruling over them.
So, if you accept that logic, ATVOD (and therefore OFCOM) NEED the babechannels on tv in order to justify their attacks on the porn websites, and the general control of the internet that it allows them.
Interesting theory, that is in contrast to some peoples view that OFCOM is out to destroy the babechannels and remove them completely.
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - 301 - 11-01-2015 16:58
^
I think what they mean by TV Like is that it is to a professional standard and high quality.
For example they would consider this as TV Like as it has presenters, idents etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOPe0d3ZeCI
But something like this would not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45_4tY_-zkg
ATVOD also try to regulate YouTube channels as well as websites for example a few years ago they bothered a channel called 'UK Column'
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/atvod-major-risk-freedom-speech-internet
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - munch1917 - 11-01-2015 18:14
(11-01-2015 16:58 )301 Wrote: ...
I think what they mean by TV Like is that it is to a professional standard and high quality.
...
That's only a small part of their definition, since the BBC has successfully fought ATVOD over their youtube channel for Top Gear. The content there was high quality and professional standard, indeed it was originally produced for, and shown on TV, but OFCOM ruled it was not tv-like in it's youtube form.
Thing is, what is 'tv-like' is not defined, ATVOD decides and more or less makes it up as it goes along.
It seems to me that ATVOD is going after the porn sites because they are easy prey, nobody will kick up too much fuss about porn sites being regulated this way. But each 'successful' case they make sets a line in the sand that becomes harder for anyone else to challenge later. They are using the porn sites to set their own rules and standards without public eyes paying too much attention, which can then be applied more widely, and if people then challenge it, they can say, but we have been doing this for ages, here's our precedents.
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - admiral decker - 11-01-2015 19:03
(11-01-2015 18:14 )munch1917 Wrote: Thing is, what is 'tv-like' is not defined, ATVOD decides and more or less makes it up as it goes along.
It is defined in the EU's Audiovisual Media Services Directive, where "TV-like" is determined by "(a) whether the material is likely to compete for the same audience as television broadcasts; and (b) whether the nature of the material and means of access would lead users to expect regulatory protection".
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - eccles - 12-01-2015 00:34
Good summary and points by Munch1917, howver ATVOD decisions can be appealed to Ofcom, who do sometimes overturn them.
A strength of the system is that appeals are not heard by the same crowd that made the orginal decision.
However above that the only route is appeal in the Administrative Section of the High Court, a slow and expensive process not realistically available to anyone other that the largest businesses.
It is that appeals process that outgoing Chief Exec Ed Richards wants removed because he thinks it is "too easy" for boardcasters to tie Ofcom up in appeals. OK, that was in relation to international mega corporations like Sky disputing whether they have to allow Virgin and BT to broadcast Sky sports, but the principle is the same. This contempt for legal process shows the man is unfit to hold a senior position in any public sector organisation, hopefully he will not get an honour when Parliament dissoves.
However there is very limited scope to appeal an Ofcom decision about a real TV show. Here (partly for my own reference) is a condensed summary of new regulations with paragraph numbers from Appendix 2 of the 2011 consultation. As far as I can see there is no provision anywhere in the process for appeal. Two sets of representions to the same person yes, appeal no.
COMPLAINT
1.9 complainants should follow the broadcaster’s own complaints procedure before making a complaint to Ofcom ... Complaints can also be made directly to Ofcom in the first instance
SCREENING
1.18 Ofcom will first consider whether,... a complaint(s) raises potentially substantive issues ... which warrant investigation by Ofcom
1.19 If Ofcom considers that it should assess the matter further, it may ask the broadcaster for a copy of the relevant programme ...
1.20 Based on an initial assessment ... and a review of the relevant broadcast, Ofcom will consider whether there may have been a breach ... which ... requires a response from the broadcaster
BROADCASTER INPUT
1.22 Ofcom will summarise the ... complaint(s) ... and invite the broadcaster to make representations
PRELIMINARY VIEW
1.25 On receipt of the broadcaster’s representations, Ofcom will ... prepare its preliminary view on ... the complaint(s). This preliminary view is only provisional and may be subject to change in the light of subsequent representations / material provided by the broadcaster ... Members of Ofcom's Content Board will be provided with all preliminary views before they are provided to the broadcaster
Note: In most cases this "preliminary" view is exactly the same as the final one. It is formed by a single salaried employee, not the Content Committee, who are merely informed of the view.
SECOND REPRESENTATIONS
1.27 When Ofcom has prepared its preliminary view, Ofcom will provide it to the broadcaster ... and request representations
1.28 Once Ofcom has received and considered the broadcaster’s representations ... on its preliminary view, it will reach its final decision and inform the broadcaster
NON DISCLOSURE
all parties are subject to the requirement of non disclosure in relation to all other material submitted and communications/correspondence entered into in relation to that complaint or case. Moreover, once a complaint has been made or Ofcom has started investigating a case, no party should take any steps which could – whether intentionally or not – compromise, or risk compromising, a fair decision on the matter by Ofcom or otherwise constitute, in Ofcom’s opinion, an abuse of process.
It is unclear how, say, the broadcaster publicising a complaint could affect decisions made by their own staff and/or Content Board. Are they scared of publicity?
SANCTION
1.33 Where Ofcom determines a complaint(s) ... by deciding that there has been a breach (or breaches) ... Ofcom may consider that it justifies consideration of a statutory sanction against the broadcaster
Ofcom has confirmed that "may consider sanctions" means it WILL impose sanctions, but has not decided what sanctions. The level of sanction is decided under a separate process by a Content Board member advised by the salaried officer who made the original decision - someone took this process to the High Court, claiming lack of independence, but Ofcom won. Its as if a TV licence inspector was sat on the magistrates bench whispering into the magistrates ear, instead of being confined to the witness stand.
Consultation 17/12/2010 - Review of procedures for handling broadcasting complaints, investigations and sanctions
Annex 2
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - eccles - 12-01-2015 00:53
On a related note, Ofcom is making itself seriously unpopular and undermining its credibility among its friends, by saying UKIP is a major political party that must be included in leaders TV debates, but the Green Party does not. There are differing views about whether stats and votes support this decision.
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - munch1917 - 12-01-2015 05:26
(12-01-2015 00:34 )eccles Wrote: ...
howver ATVOD decisions can be appealed to Ofcom, who do sometimes overturn them.
....
That's what I thought, which was why I didn't quite follow that part of the podcast. I believe this was the route the BBC took to get their rulings overturned.
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - eccles - 12-01-2015 17:35
Ofcom has today published its 3rd survey into the use and effectiveness of Internet safety measures, such as the network-level filtering (Parental Control) tools that were last year introduced by all of the largest broadband ISPs to help block “adult content” from young eyes.
Around two in five parents of children aged 5-15 with broadband at home, who do not use any particular technical tools to manage their child’s access and use, say that this is because they “talk to their child and use other types of mediation“; a similar proportion say it is because they “trust their child“.
Interestingly 48% of children say their parents use parental filtering software (compared with only 26% across Europe – no real change since 2010) and nearly half of UK children think their parents know a lot about what they do online – especially among the younger children. By comparison a quarter of parents think their child is able to bypass the technical controls they use.
just 11% said they knew how to disable online filters or controls (18% in 2013), and just 3% had done this in the past year (6% in 2013).
ISPreview
RE: Internet Porn Site Regulation - munch1917 - 14-02-2015 12:03
Interesting news on slight changes in ATVOD regulations :
http://www.xbiz.com/news/legal/191136
One proposal is to allow use of a mobile phone as a proof of age mechanism rather than a credit card, for access to restricted material. Exactly how that would work I don't know, but could make it easier for access to websites for some.
The other interesting proposal is a slight change of wording :
Quote:Another proposed regulation change would amend wording in Rule 11 that more specifically requires restricted access to R18 or R18-equivalent material rather than requiring restricted access to “material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of 18.”
That seems to make sense, and removes that ugly and ambiguous phrase which is so open to interpretation, and consequently, abuse.