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

(26-05-2010 01:05 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 00:38 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I think there's some confusion here. Nobody is asking you to implement R18 on the FTA channels (ok, a few are but ignore them for the moment because that is illegal and would involve changing UK law, as you state).

What most people want is simply for FTA channels to have the right to show explicit nudity, should they and the girls wish.

There is no statute which forbids this, just muddled dictats from Ofcom which are contradictory, poorly argued and which have no basis in law, instead flying in the face of the freedoms inherent in European law.

This is what causes the annoyance on this forum - companies such as yourselves cringing under Ofcom's pronouncements when they don't need to. Don't pretend it's the law because it's not, you just want an easy life.

Nudity on was not the question being put to which we were responding: R18 was. Please be fair.

As to nudity, that is certainly permissable under encryption. That permission is exactly what allows Ofcom to prohibit nudity on free to air. The distinction between pin protected content and free to air content is explicitly stated in the relevant European law, which has direct effect in the UK. So, contrary to what you assert, that prohibition is the law, not merely discretionary policy.

In our earlier posts, we have given the html links to the relevant European and UK law, so you can check this out for yourself.

So how is explicit nudity, masturbation, including dildos, and explicit 2 girl shows broadcast on Hotbird, FTA, if European law prohibits it?

Also, The communications Act 2003, the Law in the UK regarding broadcasting, merely sets criteria which the 'regulator' has to apply in its 'regulation’ of broadcasting e.g. protecting under 18s, Harm & Offence etc. It was Ofcon who, arbitrarily, decided that the complete ban on R18 should remain in place, not the Law. Similarly, that, arbitrarily, nudity is not allowed on FTA, or, as the years rolled by, that close-ups of (covered) genital regions are not allowed, or that 2 pairs of panties have to be worn etc. all arbitrary, Ofcon decisions, NOT the Law.

Given the dubious excuses Ofcon have given for such censorship, if would seem at least possible that a judge would find their decisions, broadcast code etc. in breach of the LAW, whether the Communications Act, or the ECHR, which Ofcon are only too keen to point out that they have to comply with, yet they deny the fundamental right of Free Expression, without providing any real justification, let alone the strict justification that is required for a legal denial?
Also, AFAIK, the TWF prohibited censorship by means of a licensing system ( I assume its replacement is the same, but I stand to be corrected), which is why Ofcon are so adamant that they are not censors, because they know that, if proved, they would be acting illegally. I could go on, but the point is that there seems to be plenty scope for a judicial review of Ofcon’s broadcast code, procedures, actions etc., but you, and all the other broadcasters, have chosen not to investigate that option, so please do not continue to claim that you are forced into that position by the Law.

Would you like us to provide the arguments to put forward at a judicial review? We might even consider not charging, what, hundreds of pounds an hour?, unlike lawyers, for the service?

(25-05-2010 17:39 )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].
SNIP

Is that R18, or fully uncensored hardcore?

Also, what will broadcast standards be like? 720 x 576? What bitrates will be employed? Or will it be sub DVD quality, like all existing hardcore channels (even Private Spice, the best by far, in my experience, falls short of DVD ‘quality’)?

IMO, what mainland European broadcasting is crying out for is a channel of genuine quality, not quantity, which is what most of the existing broadcasters go for, resulting in poor quality films, and poor, sometimes appalling, picture quality; So, please, no multi-channel subscription packages spreading modest bandwidth across them; we have more than enough of those as it is.

(30-05-2010 11:21 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 01:05 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(26-05-2010 00:38 )Digital Dave Wrote:  I think there's some confusion here. Nobody is asking you to implement R18 on the FTA channels (ok, a few are but ignore them for the moment because that is illegal and would involve changing UK law, as you state).

What most people want is simply for FTA channels to have the right to show explicit nudity, should they and the girls wish.

There is no statute which forbids this, just muddled dictats from Ofcom which are contradictory, poorly argued and which have no basis in law, instead flying in the face of the freedoms inherent in European law.

This is what causes the annoyance on this forum - companies such as yourselves cringing under Ofcom's pronouncements when they don't need to. Don't pretend it's the law because it's not, you just want an easy life.

Nudity on was not the question being put to which we were responding: R18 was. Please be fair.

As to nudity, that is certainly permissable under encryption. That permission is exactly what allows Ofcom to prohibit nudity on free to air. The distinction between pin protected content and free to air content is explicitly stated in the relevant European law, which has direct effect in the UK. So, contrary to what you assert, that prohibition is the law, not merely discretionary policy.

In our earlier posts, we have given the html links to the relevant European and UK law, so you can check this out for yourself.

So how is explicit nudity, masturbation, including dildos, and explicit 2 girl shows broadcast on Hotbird, FTA, if European law prohibits it?

Also, The communications Act 2003, the Law in the UK regarding broadcasting, merely sets criteria which the 'regulator' has to apply in its 'regulation’ of broadcasting e.g. protecting under 18s, Harm & Offence etc. It was Ofcon who, arbitrarily, decided that the complete ban on R18 should remain in place, not the Law. Similarly, that, arbitrarily, nudity is not allowed on FTA, or, as the years rolled by, that close-ups of (covered) genital regions are not allowed, or that 2 pairs of panties have to be worn etc. all arbitrary, Ofcon decisions, NOT the Law.

Given the dubious excuses Ofcon have given for such censorship, if would seem at least possible that a judge would find their decisions, broadcast code etc. in breach of the LAW, whether the Communications Act, or the ECHR, which Ofcon are only too keen to point out that they have to comply with, yet they deny the fundamental right of Free Expression, without providing any real justification, let alone the strict justification that is required for a legal denial?
Also, AFAIK, the TWF prohibited censorship by means of a licensing system ( I assume its replacement is the same, but I stand to be corrected), which is why Ofcon are so adamant that they are not censors, because they know that, if proved, they would be acting illegally. I could go on, but the point is that there seems to be plenty scope for a judicial review of Ofcon’s broadcast code, procedures, actions etc., but you, and all the other broadcasters, have chosen not to investigate that option, so please do not continue to claim that you are forced into that position by the Law.

Would you like us to provide the arguments to put forward at a judicial review? We might even consider not charging, what, hundreds of pounds an hour?, unlike lawyers, for the service?

Mods: can we move this discussion to the Censorship thread.
We have set out our summary of what we and our lawyers consider is the correct legal position. We have every sympathy with the logical case that you put forward, but it is not the legal position.

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

Is that R18, or fully uncensored hardcore?
SORRY YOU LOST US HERE. THERE IS NO R18 CLASSIFICATION IN EUROPE

Also, what will broadcast standards be like? 720 x 576? What bitrates will be employed? Or will it be sub DVD quality, like all existing hardcore channels (even Private Spice, the best by far, in my experience, falls short of DVD ‘quality’)?

IMO, what mainland European broadcasting is crying out for is a channel of genuine quality, not quantity, which is what most of the existing broadcasters go for, resulting in poor quality films, and poor, sometimes appalling, picture quality; So, please, no multi-channel subscription packages spreading modest bandwidth across them; we have more than enough of those as it is.
[/quote]
THE PICTURE QUALITY IS THE BEST MONEY CAN BUY

(31-05-2010 00:54 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(30-05-2010 12:08 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  

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

(30-05-2010 12:08 )Censorship :-( Wrote:  Is that R18, or fully uncensored hardcore?

(31-05-2010 00:54 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  SORRY YOU LOST US HERE. THERE IS NO R18 CLASSIFICATION IN EUROPE

I didn't say there was an R18 classification in mainland Europe. I was just trying to confirm that, as an English company who, presumably, have R18 releases, you weren't going to inflict those upon us?

BTW, there's no need to shout

(31-05-2010 00:54 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  THE PICTURE QUALITY IS THE BEST MONEY CAN BUY

Have you ever thought of going into politics? The ability to ‘answer’ a question without actually answering it, is highly prized, I believe

And, seriously, there's no need to shout

(31-05-2010 00:50 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  SNIP

Mods: can we move this discussion to the Censorship thread.
We have set out our summary of what we and our lawyers consider is the correct legal position. We have every sympathy with the logical case that you put forward, but it is not the legal position.

Perhaps you should get some new lawyers?

(28-05-2010 22:09 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote:  

(28-05-2010 01:52 )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.

Apologies for the late reply - have bee away.

Also, apologies again, but your lawyers' arguments make no sense. Ask them to explain how we ended up with hardcore permissable in magazines or on video / DVD then. In the case of video for example, there was a designated body with vested powers that had arbitrarily decided that so-called "hardcore" material breached the harm and offense criteria upheld in law.

If it is not possible to challenge this kind of decision from this kind of body (as you clearly believe with your reply about Ofcom's powers) then how did it end up being overturned? It was not through the goodness of the censor's eyes, that's for certain!

I understand that fighting the case is expensive. I also understand that if one company fights and wins, then although only one company bore the costs, all companies would share in the victory. I understand that this makes it financially dubious. If those are your reasons then at least have the guts to admit it, because your legal reasons don't make sense.

Ask yourself why the man who championed hardcore magazines and DVDs is fighting against hardcore TV. Is it because he fears for the children who might sneak down the stairs to watch late at night, or is it because he fears for his profits. He would NOT be involved in this fight if it could not be won - what would be the point for him? No, he only fights because he knows the same arguments and process HE used to win R18 in magazines and videos applies here, and that would cost him money.

(02-06-2010 00:30 )Grawth Wrote:  Apologies for the late reply - have bee away.

Also, apologies again, but your lawyers' arguments make no sense. Ask them to explain how we ended up with hardcore permissable in magazines or on video / DVD then. In the case of video for example, there was a designated body with vested powers that had arbitrarily decided that so-called "hardcore" material breached the harm and offense criteria upheld in law.

If it is not possible to challenge this kind of decision from this kind of body (as you clearly believe with your reply about Ofcom's powers) then how did it end up being overturned? It was not through the goodness of the censor's eyes, that's for certain!

I understand that fighting the case is expensive. I also understand that if one company fights and wins, then although only one company bore the costs, all companies would share in the victory. I understand that this makes it financially dubious. If those are your reasons then at least have the guts to admit it, because your legal reasons don't make sense.

Ask yourself why the man who championed hardcore magazines and DVDs is fighting against hardcore TV. Is it because he fears for the children who might sneak down the stairs to watch late at night, or is it because he fears for his profits. He would NOT be involved in this fight if it could not be won - what would be the point for him? No, he only fights because he knows the same arguments and process HE used to win R18 in magazines and videos applies here, and that would cost him money.

Which bit of: the BBFC videos case was not fought within the framework of a European directive; an Ofcom case would be: do you not understand ?

Which part of EU law prohibits hardcore broadcasting? None.

EU law states that a broadcast can only be prohibited if it is likely to impair or harm the development of minors. In other circumstances, the broadcast is deemed sufficiently protected if it is made less accessible by means of either time of broadcast, or by technological means (eg a pin requirement).

Ofcom have accepted (because they have no choice) that R18 is NOT "likely to impair or harm the development of minors", and so they fall back on claiming that pin protection is not sufficient.

This is their ONLY case.

That stance IS challengable, not least from the very flakey research that Ofcom commissioned and published when they first consulted on their new code.

(04-06-2010 01:09 )Grawth Wrote:  Which part of EU law prohibits hardcore broadcasting? None.

EU law states that a broadcast can only be prohibited if it is likely to impair or harm the development of minors. In other circumstances, the broadcast is deemed sufficiently protected if it is made less accessible by means of either time of broadcast, or by technological means (eg a pin requirement).

Ofcom have accepted (because they have no choice) that R18 is NOT "likely to impair or harm the development of minors", and so they fall back on claiming that pin protection is not sufficient.

This is their ONLY case.

That stance IS challengable, not least from the very flakey research that Ofcom commissioned and published when they first consulted on their new code.

No. Their 'case' is that they have been delegated the rule making power by Parliament, to exercise that power within the scope of their discretion. You can only challenge the exercise of that discretion if you can show that no reasonable Ofcom would decide what it has decided.

They commissioned research & undertook consultation precisely to demonstrate that they acted "reasonably".

You can argue with the conclusions they drew from that research and consultation. But that does not alter the reasonableness - for judicial review purposes - of what they decided.

Remember, they received consultation responses saying that no babechannel material should be transmitted. They rejected that and drew a 'halfway' line.

That is how they justify reasonableness.

You don't agree. Most of the Forum doesn't agree. We don't agree. Perhaps 50% or more of the British public does not agree. And that is often going to be the case when a body vested with discretionary power exercises that discretion.