Ofcom Discussion

(13-12-2014 08:40 )Lotuseater Wrote:  So do these regulations mean that a UK based Chaturbate couple could be illegal if they do face sitting, or even a just female performer who squirts?
...

It shouldn't matter. These are ATVOD regulations, and ATVOD only has jurisdiction over UK based websites (or sites under UK based control). Chaturbate and the like are outside the UK, and therefore beyond ATVOD's control, even if the performer is UK based. Of course, ATVOD may see things differently, but I don't see how they can claim jurisdiction over the entire site. They could claim jurisdiction over the UK based performers, and make them individually register and pay the ATVOD fee, that would make many performers think twice about the business. Given that many girls perform on more than one site, presumably each site they work on would require a separate registration and fee, it would make a very big dent in the UK webcam business overnight. Let's hope they don't go down that road!

Adultwork is another story, and I know a few adultwork girls are concerned about their shows and for sale content, but I'm not entirely sure if they will be affected

On a similar note, I have seen mention that clips4sale has issues with UK sales. Apparently they are no longer directly processing UK cards, so it is now neccessary to purchase a cash card from them for UK sales, this acts like a pre-paid credit card for purchasing content from the site. This is apparently in response to ATVOD regulations, even though the site is based outside the UK, so it shows that things are not entirely clear cut.
I think this has more to do with ATVOD's view that debit cards are not a proof of age, but C4S have gone a step further with it, and blocked UK credit cards as well. I'm not sure that they are under any direct threat or pressure from ATVOD either, but may be doing this as an overly cautious approach, a kind of pre-emptive action.

(13-12-2014 13:36 )munch1917 Wrote:  

(13-12-2014 08:40 )Lotuseater Wrote:  So do these regulations mean that a UK based Chaturbate couple could be illegal if they do face sitting, or even a just female performer who squirts?
...

On a similar note, I have seen mention that clips4sale has issues with UK sales. Apparently they are no longer directly processing UK cards, so it is now neccessary to purchase a cash card from them for UK sales, this acts like a pre-paid credit card for purchasing content from the site. This is apparently in response to ATVOD regulations, even though the site is based outside the UK, so it shows that things are not entirely clear cut.
I think this has more to do with ATVOD's view that debit cards are not a proof of age, but C4S have gone a step further with it, and blocked UK credit cards as well. I'm not sure that they are under any direct threat or pressure from ATVOD either, but may be doing this as an overly cautious approach, a kind of pre-emptive action.

Well, this is potentially curtains for UK online porn buyers if every site takes this approach.

I am really not sure I was to live in dear old England any longer.

Orwell plus thirty...welcome to 2014 where the descendant of Big Brother aka Sanctimonious Twat is looking after our moral lifestyle....

Here's a very good and more in depth outline of the rules than I've seen elsewhere :

http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/20...table.html

The article illustrates how confused and open to interpretation theses rules actually are. For example, on squirting :

Quote:Peeing and squirting are acceptable if not performed onto another person and/or then consumed.

Squirting during sex or masturbation is acceptable if fairly brief, isolated and not deliberately consumed or put onto a body. It would be acceptable to imply that it was licked up if could be deemed as to be simulated.

*my emphasis

So squirting is OK as long as you don't squirt onto someone else.
And licking up your squirt is OK, as long as it's simulated!
And what exactly constitutes a 'fairly brief' squirt?
And it must be 'isolated', so what, one squirt is OK, but heaven forbid that you squirt again

Ridiculous

^This is another example of back of fag packet policies this shamble of a government specializes in.

[quote='munch1917' pid='1589187' dateline='1418491949']
...The article illustrates how confused and open to interpretation theses rules actually are. For example, on squirting :

[quote]Peeing and squirting are acceptable if not performed onto another person and/or then consumed.

Squirting during sex or masturbation is acceptable if fairly brief, isolated and not deliberately consumed or put onto a body.
...
Ridiculous
[/quote]

Peeing is allowed in R18, provided it is not onto another person (or consumed apparently). Check out some Tanya Hyde stuff.

As for brief squirting, the flexible nature of BBFC rules probably means that is permitted too, provided it is not enough to jerk off to or is "artistically justified".

In 2010 the BBFC passed Women Love Porn after a legal challenge from Anna Span. The BBFC stated "instead that it does not take any view on whether female ejaculation exists, only claiming that all examples its members have seen thus far during classification have been urination during sex." and "The BBFC maintains that it does not accept the existence of female ejaculation and its "position remains fundamentally unchanged for future releases" Wikipedia Porn Movies For Women / Anna Span

Peeing is even occasionally allowed in cert 18 films provided it is non explicit and "justified" - Black Angel*, The Counterfeiters, anything by Tinto Brass, or the uncut version of Caligula where a woman pees on the corpse of Proculus while another woman waggles her fingers in the stream. (* also known as Senso 45)

Here is what the BBFC say about Caligula: "The cut material included not only explicit sight of real sex but also scenes of violence and sexual violence that were felt to render the film potentially illegal. These included a scene of castration, a disemboweling, the rape of a virgin and sight of Caligula inserting his fist into a man's anus. Over eight minutes of footage were cut before Customs and Excise, the lawyers and the BBFC were satisfied that the film no longer contravened UK laws.
...
In 2008, the full uncut version of Caligula was resubmitted to the BBFC for DVD release. The passage of nearly 30 years had significantly diminished the film's impact and after careful consideration it was decided that it could now be classified 18 uncut. This decision accords with the BBFC Guidelines, which state that 'At 18, the BBFC's Guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law'." BBFC Case Study

The plasticity of BBFC rules raises an interesting question. BBFC rules can and do flex from time to time. They are not absolute red lines. To be consistent ATVOD - as required by the DCMS - ATVOD will have to exhibit similar flexibility. A 2 second glimpse might be passed by the BBFC but banned by ATVOD.

ATVOD could be in for a series of humiliating legal challenges.

Sharon White is to be the new Chief Executive of Ofcom. Will things change under her new leadership of the media regulator?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/de...-regulator
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30501529

Well her appointment doesn't really come as a surprise seeing that she was the leading and only candidate to my knowledge. Will things change under her leadership, short answer to that one - Yes. She'll want to put her mark down from the off.

What she makes of the likes of Babestation and co is anybody's guess, she could go on the warpath and try to have the lot of them removed and really start to make life hard for them such as enforcing daytime rules 24/7.

I hope that she doesn't target them and that they are able to move forward freely without let or hindrance. One thing she'll probably want to do is draw up a brand new broadcasting code guideline. I hope that this proves to be beneficial and not detrimental to everything adult wise.

With ED and Colette now away I hope that we get the green light to a period of less censorship. Who knows 2015 could be the year when the channels are finally restored to their former glory and beyond.

(13-12-2014 08:40 )Lotuseater Wrote:  So do these regulations mean that a UK based Chaturbate couple could be illegal if they do face sitting, or even a just female performer who squirts?

It is utterly absurd that perfectly legal pastimes are illegal to view on video.

When ATVOD was set up it was clear that it would only apply to television like content that was delivered on demand rather than when the broadcaster chose to put it on. I think Top Gear won a case arguing that short clips on the Top Gear website were not TVlike because they lacked titles at the beginning, credits at the end, were substantially shorter than the TV shows, and lacked a coherent narrative making a whole show that told a story. I could be wrong, they may have lost.

Webcasts are inherently different. For a start they are not stored recorded content that was scripted, rehursed and edited, but simply whatever takes the participants fancy at the time.

Secondly webcasts are 1-2-1, making them fundamentally different from TV broadcasts, which are "cast" on a "broad" basis. (The alternative, going to a small select audience, is narrowcast. It is a recognised industry term).

Third webcasts can be interactive, unlike TV broadcasts.

The whole purpose was not to block porn, but to prevent one set of TV broadcasters getting round rules and regulations by delivering content over the internet instead of through an aerial. If you watchan episode of Broadchurch or American Detective, should it matter which way you get it? Does it suddenly become legal to have 20 minutes solid adverts just because the delivery mechanism is different? Should it be OK to stuff Postman Pat with adverts for fags, unregulated medicines and payday loans just because a kid is watching at the wrong time? Of course not.

It is arguable that porn sites that allow people to watch entire films like Caligula or Deep Throat are competing with TV.

The argument breaks down when those same porn sites serve up 5 minute clips of content that could never be shown on TV and which are small extracts from longer originals lacking context, continuity, build, introduction, pack, a satisfactory conclusion, or Pearl and Dean adverts. Who are those people? How did they get into that situation?

One compelling reason why porn film clips cannot be shown on TV is that they would be rated R18, and that rating is reserved for content that lacks narrative justification for offensive content. Does it inform, educate or entertain? No, its just a stroke movie. Therefore unsuitable for TV. Therefore not TV like.

Parliament has published the impact assessment for the latest proposal here. However it is deficient. It looks at Costs and Benefits, but fails to spell out that the putting R18 content behind paywalls will give a big competitive advantage to the big players in the market who already put all their content behind paywalls, compared to unknown names who give out samplers, or have freesites paid by advertising. Its as if at a stroke Parliament passed a law forcing small corner shops to operate the same expensive stock control and loyalty card systems as big supermarkets like Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury, Tesco.

It also fails to spell out the impact of over and under 18s switching from UK sites that operate within UK norms, even if MPs dont like those, and UK obscenity legislation (yes, it does apply) and switching to totally unregulated foreign sites where a search for "Big Brother" is as likely to return incest themed content, possibly without consent, and presenting is as normal.

(An earlier consultation on banning content stronger than R18 can be found here).

ATVOD must ensure several things, protecting under 18s being only one-
(a) Providers pay fees
(b) avoid incitement based on race, sex, religion, nationality
© protect impairment to the physical, mental or moral development of under 18s (physical?)
(d) control sponsorship
(e) control product placement
(f) keep copies of programmes for 42 days
(g) cooperate with ATVOD/Ofcom
Designation 2012 (Part 2 para 6(ii)).

Note that under this same, legally binding, designation, ATVOD "shall ... decide what constitutes an-demand programme service" and "regulatory activities should be transparent" (paras Pt2 6.2(a) and Pt1 5.2(a))

Final thought. When ATVOD was set up in the Government estimated that there were a total of 150 video on demand services in all, 90 broadcaster related and 60 non broadcaster related. The Impact Assessment estimated that 60 non broadcaster services would be affected - in reality far more have been evaluated, and even more have not been assessed but are impacted by the legislation. AVMS Regs 2009 No 2979.

The various Impact Assessment have looked at Carbon Assessment, Race Equality, Rural Proofing and various other areas including Human Rights, but there is no clear mention of Freedom of Speech. None.

(17-12-2014 00:26 )Scottishbloke Wrote:  http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/de...-regulator
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30501529

Well her appointment doesn't really come as a surprise seeing that she was the leading and only candidate to my knowledge. Will things change under her leadership, short answer to that one - Yes. She'll want to put her mark down from the off.

WTF does the CEO of the regulator for the Post Office and the whole telecoms industry have to do with Culture?

Quote:What she makes of the likes of Babestation and co is anybody's guess, she could go on the warpath and try to have the lot of them removed and really start to make life hard for them such as enforcing daytime rules 24/7.

She is a mother of young children and her husband is a committed Christian. What do you think?

Quote:I hope that she doesn't target them and that they are able to move forward freely without let or hindrance. One thing she'll probably want to do is draw up a brand new broadcasting code guideline. I hope that this proves to be beneficial and not detrimental to everything adult wise.

With ED and Colette now away I hope that we get the green light to a period of less censorship. Who knows 2015 could be the year when the channels are finally restored to their former glory and beyond.

It would be interesting to know if people involved in the selection process have given her an Agenda. Nothing in writing of course.