(02-02-2013 16:49 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]I just visited the shebang website. They appear to be based in the UK, and have a simple 'you must be 18 years old or older' click link to enter the main site. Once there, they run previews of previous shows, uncensored, and on show nights, they have uncensored free-to-air sections.
If playboy fell foul of ATVOD, maybe shebang should be a little more cautious!
And for that matter, sexstation also appears to be UK based and doesn't have any kind of clickable link to enter! (although admittedly I can't seem to make their site work in any of my browsers, so have to use another site if I choose to watch their feed, so maybe they are safe!)
I think your argument is incorrect. The VOD in ATVOD stands for video on demand. Live shows from Shebang are not video on demand and neither is the sex station feed.
(02-02-2013 20:50 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]^^ I know sexstation is dutch owned, but the website is UK based, and ATVOD could argue it is UK controlled.
Playboy tried to move control of their websites overseas (Canada I seem to recall), but ATVOD/Ofcom argued that in reality the sites were still 'run' from UK, so came under their jurisdiction, hence the recent fine.
My point was and what i was wondering is seeing as SexStation is a Dutch owned website is it like the tv channels regulated by the Dutch in some capacity ? , if so it wouldn't be under ATVOD's jurisdiction in the same way as the tv BS channels are not regulated by Ofcom because under European laws 2 regulators from 2 different country's don't regulate the same broadcast .So if it is already being regulated in some capacity by another European country then maybe it is out of ATVOD remit ? .
Playboy may have been different because of it trying to move to Canada and not a European country ? .
Good points. Material from outside the EU can still be regulated in the EU, for example the default is that rebroadcast nonEU satellite channels are regulated in the EU country the rebroadcast is uplinked from, failing that in the country that owns the satellite, so Playboy TV will always regualted in the EU one way or another.
Given time similar controls WILL be applied to foreign based internet porn. Some way will be found to hold ISPs responsible.
Unfortunately the relevant EU AVSMD regulation covers both linear and on demand audiovisual media, regardless of delivery mechanism. It makes no mention of radio waves, satellites, cable or internet. That means it can cover linear TV type channels over the internet. UK legislation might not cover that yet, but it could.
Shit, shit, shit.
Quote:AVMSD - General Principles - Scope
Article 1(1)(a)
“audiovisual media service” means:
(i) a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty which is under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider and the principal purpose of which is the provision of programmes, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 2002/21/EC. Such an audiovisual media service is either a television broadcast as defined in point (e) of this paragraph or an on-demand audiovisual media service as defined in point (g) of this paragraph;
(ii) audiovisual commercial communication;"
Article 1(1)(e)
(e) “television broadcasting” or “television broadcast” (i.e. a linear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for simultaneous viewing of programmes on the basis of a programme schedule;
Article 1(1)(g)
(g) “on-demand audiovisual media service” (i.e. a non-linear audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for the viewing of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider;"
Web porn: Just how much is there?
Another interesting article from the BBC challenging the myth that the web is awash with porn.
One figure that crops up is that 37% of the internet [pages] is made up of pornographic material, based on a press release put out in June 2010 by net filtering firm Optenet. Not only is this 3 years out of date, despite 90% of all information created by humans being less than 2 years old, another study the same year put the figure at 4% [of websites]. Part of the difference is that porn sites put up large numbers of new pages and duplicates to drag in viewers - pages and sites are not the same. The number of pages people view can be a small fraction.
Another study estimated 30% of web traffic was porn. The trouble with estimates is the methodology can be wrong. Traffic figures were obtained for one site (100 million visitors a day - 1/60 of the worlds entire population!). The site itself said the true figure was lower, 70 million visitors a day. Still a lot, but 30% lower. Total web traffic was estimated at 0.5 exabytes a day, network company Cisco puts the figure almost 3 times higher at 1.4 exabytes. So the figures were inflated by 30% and almost x3, overall a 4 fold exaggeration.
On top of that, visitor figures for one popular sample porn site were assumed to be equally true for all similarly sized porn libraries on the internet. Taking one sample of one measurement as accurate and representative of an entire population would be a fail at GCSE Statistics. There are many dead porn sites littering the internet for no better reason than it takes time and effort to clear them down, they are low maintenance but generate a trickle of advertising money from occasional visitors. Others are loaded with viruses, slow and unresponsive, or just wrap content from other sites.
To say site X accounts for 100M visits a day and there are 10,000 other porn sites so total porn use must be 10,000 times higher than site X is statistical nonsense. No industry has 10,000 equal sized operators.
I'll put this here, although I think we've discussed it previously in the main Ofcom thread.
Seems Cameron has been actively 'interfering' with regards the porn filters issue, trying to get the isp's to sing his tune so it looks like a victory for him.
Must admit, I found it strange that one minute the isp's were opposed to filters being deployed by default, next minute it seemed to be happening. Seems it was really just spin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23312579
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...10076.html
I really thought the nanny state government had gone out with Labour. Anyone who really wants to access the type of violent/child porn that these measures will tackle will simply find another way to do it. The majority of these type of people don't go through search engines but simply share from person to person
(22-07-2013 13:30 )BriWizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Does look like it's going to happen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
I hope the internet mobilises itself once again to beat this shit into the ground and let it never surface again.
If anyone on twitter wishes to voice their opposition to this move to an MP that is heavily involved in this legislation, might I suggest tweeting the smug bitch Claire Perry on @claire4devizes
Sadly I fear the self-righteous do-gooders and PR bandwagon-chasing politicians are going to ensure it's even harder to watch straight-forward porn or even just look at attractive girls on the Internet. I would expect to see even greater pressure from Ofcom and the like on sites such as Shebang (and BSX if it ever gets a web-only offering working) in an attempt to drive them out of existence.
The irony is that none of the b******t being proposed will actually have any effect on the really sinister stuff, and will simply result in people like us being cast as deviants and potential paedophiles.
What is needed is not more regulation and sabre rattling but an outbreak of common sense and a sensible discussion about what really causes the sort of crimes we have heard about. But with politicians all trying to seek electoral advantage out of this (just like the NHS) unfortunately we're not going to see this.
erm...this is all a bit over the top, you just "opt in" if you want to be able to access adult themed sites. I had to do just that when I changed broadband provider. it didnt cost me any extra each month and is a sensible thing to ask a user to choose.
unless someone has something dark and sinister to hide then I dont understand why theres any reason to get worked up about this