Bluebird TV - Technical Chat & Info : Regulations, Encryption, Platform

(27-05-2010 16:40 )Browser1 Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 23:11 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 14:42 )mr mystery Wrote:  It seems to me if BLUEBIRD are seriously trying to give the viewers what they want to see on free to air show (full frontal nudity) then all they have to do is pin protect all their channels , after all ofcom do not state that company's have to charge people to see nude girls , they only ask the channels to pin protect their shows before they do . At least BLUEBIRD could try this out on one of their live phone in shows , they could show full frontal nudity but not to explicit , they could then state the fact that if you want to see real close up open leg shots that you then have to subscribe to the "HARDBLUE" channel . Even Cellcast allowed BSXtream to be broadcast free when it first launched , all you had to do was obtain your free pin number via mobile phone .

We agree

Does this mean so that we can expect to see non-explicit full-frontal nudity on the FTA Bluebird channels when they do launch. To be honest, I'm not really interested in full-on hardcore. If I can see a fully naked presenter on a babechannel without anything obstructing the genitals, then I'm in babechannel heaven. And if her legs happen to slip open, well, then, I'm...oops, cleanup on aisle 1 lol

On free (i.e. £1.50 a month) encrypted - yes

So Mr Bluebird....there won't be any FTA channels on Bluebird because they will ALL be encrypted ???
Although some will be cheaper then others.

Grey

(27-05-2010 23:45 )greybeard2x Wrote:  So Mr Bluebird....there won't be any FTA channels on Bluebird because they will ALL be encrypted ???
Although some will be cheaper then others.

Grey

Sorry - we have already answered this many times. Here it is again:

[1] Lots of free free to air channels: Ofcom standard
[2] Nominal cost encrypted channel[s]: up to nude
[3] £5 per Show 18 rated sex shows, with R18 stream to web

Thanks

(25-05-2010 16:39 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

Quote:So, you expect a member of the public, with, presumably, limited financial resources compared to a broadcaster, let alone one as supposedly large as Bluebird, to do YOUR dirty work for you?
You, it would seem from your comments, like all other broadcasters, are ultimately complicit in the censorship suffered in the UK because you just sit back and meekly accept Ofcon censorship, instead of trying to do something about it. Why?

I take it that this means that your forthcoming channels will be just as tame as all of the existing ‘adult entertainment’ output in the UK, then?
More of the same, great!

You mentioned, somewhere, ‘European’ channels – which satellite(s) will these be broadcast on? Will they be FTA, or encrypted? Will they be any less censored than UK channels?

Euro channels will be encrypted and full hardcore [same as you would get in a Bluebird DVD or at Bluebirdfilms.com].

The law is what it is. We can go to court a million times: and lose - because the law is the law is the law.

We all wish it were not the law. It is the law. The Courts do not in this country overturn statutes. The prohibition on R18 is the law, because Ofcom was delegated by Parliament the statutory legal power to censor what appears on TV in this country.

Laws get changed by electing politicians to change the law. You are 1 individual - you have a vote. We are a company. We have no right to vote.

Bullshit.

How do you think we went from not being allowed hardcore magazines, to being allowed them? Or from not being allowed R18 DVD to being allowed them?

Simple, a company was fined, they challenged that decision in court, and a jury decided that hardcore was NOT offensive, and was not of a sufficient risk to minors to prevent publication.

Even Ofcom's own research agrees with this.

They have just chosen, without any evidence, to apply a "precautionary principle". In other words, as there is a small chance that a child may see it, and an even smaller chance that the child might then be disturbed by what they see, then they ought to ban it - just in case.

It has nothing to do with "The Law" and everything to do with Ofcom's predetermined position.

Ask yourself this. What jury in this country would claim there was a bigger problem with R18 on TV than R18 on DVD? Answer: no jury. You sell R18 DVDs in this country, so clearly R18 is NOT against the law. What is in question is just the delivery method.

Further points on "The Law"

There is no ban on R18.

There never really was.

The law is all about what is considered "harmful and offensive" by "current standards".

So, what is now called R18 used to be considered both harmful and offensive. It isn't now.

The precautionary approach used by Ofcom is not a legally viable one. It is just the last in a long line of justifications used over the past 30 years or so.

Again, the law does NOT ban R18.

(27-05-2010 20:48 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(27-05-2010 16:40 )Browser1 Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 23:11 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 14:42 )mr mystery Wrote:  It seems to me if BLUEBIRD are seriously trying to give the viewers what they want to see on free to air show (full frontal nudity) then all they have to do is pin protect all their channels , after all ofcom do not state that company's have to charge people to see nude girls , they only ask the channels to pin protect their shows before they do . At least BLUEBIRD could try this out on one of their live phone in shows , they could show full frontal nudity but not to explicit , they could then state the fact that if you want to see real close up open leg shots that you then have to subscribe to the "HARDBLUE" channel . Even Cellcast allowed BSXtream to be broadcast free when it first launched , all you had to do was obtain your free pin number via mobile phone .

We agree

Does this mean so that we can expect to see non-explicit full-frontal nudity on the FTA Bluebird channels when they do launch. To be honest, I'm not really interested in full-on hardcore. If I can see a fully naked presenter on a babechannel without anything obstructing the genitals, then I'm in babechannel heaven. And if her legs happen to slip open, well, then, I'm...oops, cleanup on aisle 1 lol

On free (i.e. £1.50 a month) encrypted - yes

Oh. I thought it was 100% FTA. Okay. I guess I can live with £1.50 (just under €2.00).

A couple of questions though (and please don't shoot me if they've been answered before). How would we pay? Can we pay month by month, or is it a recurring cost? If we can pay by mobile, does that mean that we could, potentially, be tied into a subscription service like the other channels offer?

Personally, I would prefer to have the option to pay as you go. And I would rather prefer that if paying by mobile, that I do not get tied into a subscription service.

Thank you for taking the time to address my queries.

(28-05-2010 00:52 )Grawth Wrote:  Bullshit.

How do you think we went from not being allowed hardcore magazines, to being allowed them? Or from not being allowed R18 DVD to being allowed them?

Simple, a company was fined, they challenged that decision in court, and a jury decided that hardcore was NOT offensive, and was not of a sufficient risk to minors to prevent publication.

Even Ofcom's own research agrees with this.

They have just chosen, without any evidence, to apply a "precautionary principle". In other words, as there is a small chance that a child may see it, and an even smaller chance that the child might then be disturbed by what they see, then they ought to ban it - just in case.

It has nothing to do with "The Law" and everything to do with Ofcom's predetermined position.

Ask yourself this. What jury in this country would claim there was a bigger problem with R18 on TV than R18 on DVD? Answer: no jury. You sell R18 DVDs in this country, so clearly R18 is NOT against the law. What is in question is just the delivery method.

'Bullshit' does not really qualify as legal analysis.

Putting R18 on TV is not a criminal offence. We agree it's unlikely that a jury in a hypothetical criminal trial would adjudicate as guilty. But the point your argument misses is that Putting R18 on TV is not a criminal offence. So there is no trial by jury.

There is instead the exercise of Ofcom's administrative discretion vested in it by Parliament. Hopefully, you see the difference.

In order to challenge that, you would have to prove before a judge (not a jury) that Ofcom's discretion was exercised in a way that breached something called 'administrative law'. Where a body has been vested with discretionary power, that is very difficult to prove. You have to show that no reaspnable Ofcom would do it. Not 'reasonable' by our or your standards but by their own standards.

Now you understand the law, you will understand why none of the Babechannels have gone to court over this.

Quote:Oh. I thought it was 100% FTA. Okay. I guess I can live with £1.50 (just under €2.00).

A couple of questions though (and please don't shoot me if they've been answered before). How would we pay? Can we pay month by month, or is it a recurring cost? If we can pay by mobile, does that mean that we could, potentially, be tied into a subscription service like the other channels offer?

Personally, I would prefer to have the option to pay as you go. And I would rather prefer that if paying by mobile, that I do not get tied into a subscription service.

Thank you for taking the time to address my queries.

There will be lots of different payment methods. At smoething like a nominal £1.50 a month, hopefully nobody much minds how it is done.

(28-05-2010 00:55 )Grawth Wrote:  Further points on "The Law"

There is no ban on R18.

There never really was.

The law is all about what is considered "harmful and offensive" by "current standards".

So, what is now called R18 used to be considered both harmful and offensive. It isn't now.

The precautionary approach used by Ofcom is not a legally viable one. It is just the last in a long line of justifications used over the past 30 years or so.

Again, the law does NOT ban R18.

Thanks for contributing.

Ofcom has been delegated the discretion to determine the conditions upon which broadcast licences are granted and renewed. That is 'the law'.

In the exercise of its legally granted discretion, Ofcom has proscribed R18 on linear TV. That is the exercise of a legal power or authority. It is 'the law'.

Lots of people may disagree with the reasoning Ofcom has used in reaching the decision as to how to exercise its discretion. But that is not relevant in law. All that is relevant is whether [a] Ofcom has exercised a discretion [b] it has done so within the very broad scope of 'reasonableness'.

As to what that means, see our other post on this.

(28-05-2010 23:02 )michael21 Wrote:  BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL please see post 114

An answer to that will have to await the Tech Team coming back from bank hols.