(06-02-2019 19:18 )admin Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2019 18:39 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]That's not true. There are other reasons than sex to rate a film 18, for example, the Saw films are not pornographic are they ?
You're taking my statement out of context.
This should be clearer for you: Any material taken from the babe shows which is or which would be rated 18 by the BBFC is pornographic.
Not meaning to be pedantic but you said " any material " not any material from the babeshows., but I take your point
(06-02-2019 17:33 )admin Wrote: [ -> ] (31-01-2019 20:33 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]1. This site is regarded as "pornographic" then is it?
Any material which is or which would be rated 18 by the BBFC is pornographic.
Okay, thanks. That's a start. So we are talking prolonged sexual nudity (something that would make it an 18 film). So is 30% of this site nightshow video footage with tits out?
(I know it's probably not worth challenging the BBFC on that score but I'm curious as to their mechanism here. Also if they are going to set up a system so obviously porous and with this ridiculously arbitary threshold why not make them waste their time counting?!
)
(06-02-2019 19:18 )admin Wrote: [ -> ] (06-02-2019 18:39 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]That's not true. There are other reasons than sex to rate a film 18, for example, the Saw films are not pornographic are they ?
You're taking my statement out of context.
This should be clearer for you: Any material taken from the babe shows which is or which would be rated 18 by the BBFC is pornographic.
The TV babe shows are classed as adverts by Ofcom, and come under advertising rules, and aren't classed as pornography by Ofcom, so i assume the babe channels would not be rated 18 by the BBFC ?, or would they ? .
^ There's no such thing as standardized age ratings for TV in this country (yet!) This is why there's a fudged mess of definitions.
what about the adverts on this site ?
(06-02-2019 20:25 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]So is 30% of this site nightshow video footage with tits out?
It doesn't matter. The 30% rule isn’t applicable to us, as our site is clearly 'adult' in nature.
The 30% rule is meant to excuse the likes of Twitter from being subject to age verification.
^ Fair enough. I thought there were already provisions for excluding social media sites (they were excluded as "ancillary providers" as I recall). Perhaps it was thought that wasn't strong enough.
I take it we have no indication as yet on how the operators are going to handle day and nights streams? Surely the channels wont want the regular day streams behind AV? (Is this something to do with the change to beryl numbered streams for day babes at BS?)
Do regular day streams even exist? When I look at Babestation streams during the daytime they seem to be forever advertising camshows or blurring the picture out.
I would say that day streams don't exist, because these days they all come with the pervcam option which is inevitably an adult service.
(07-02-2019 15:15 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]I thought there were already provisions for excluding social media sites (they were excluded as "ancillary providers" as I recall).
No, being an ancillary service provider does not exclude anyone. It’s possible for a website to be an ancillary service provider for other sites and still be subject to age verification itself.
If a site breaches the 30% rule it’s required to age verify whether it’s also an ancillary service provider or not.