(13-12-2014 09:40 )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.
