Fees on Demand…YouTube set to start charging for its channels and become liable to the expensive ATVOD censorship regime for Video on Demand

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from pocket-lint.com

The Financial Times is reporting that Google will launch paid subscription channels on YouTube sometime very soon. Channels will be priced from about £ 1.30 a month. The idea would allow traditional broadcasters to offer content to viewers YouTube has been interested in creating more high-quality channels for some time now. Recently it awarded grants of $1million to several UK bidders who pitched channel ideas. There is one interesting side issue here, because at some point YouTube will become, in the eyes of the UK government – and likely others – a broadcaster. When that happens, the firm is going to have to obey UK censorship laws and make sure that under-18s are protected from unsuitable content. Pocket-lint understands that the money YouTube gave to its channel partners to start channels was paid in advance specifically to avoid the need to be censored by ATVOD and Ofcom. ATVOD’s censorship fees are very expensive and the money is mostly spent dreaming up ways to suffocate the UK adult internet business. YouTube is currently outside of the grasp of ATVOD as user content is specifically excused from their censorship under European law. However material from commercial channels which may be TV programmes is not exempt from TV censorship once it is under editorial control and uploaded by the channels themselves.

Suffocating the British Adult Industry…ATVOD rules that online adult services must block access to children and adults without a credit card

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from atvod.co.uk See Studio66 TV [pdf] from atvod.co.uk See G Spot [pdf] from atvod.co.uk See Abused Piggy [pdf] from atvod.co.uk

ATVOD publishes determination that three adult video on demand services had breached ATVOD rules requiring video on demand providers to ensure that under 18s cannot normally access hardcore pornographic content ATVOD’s findings – against the providers of online video on demand services Studio66 TV , G Spot Productions and Abused Piggy – brings to 17 the number of adult suffocated by the VOD censor over the last 18 months. All of them were operating in breach of an ATVOD rule which requires that R18 hardcore material can only be made available if access is blocked to children. The latest three services — which operated through a total of 11 websites – offered users access to explicit hard-core porn videos which could be viewed on-demand. ATVOD found that the G Spot Productions service broke the statutory rules in two ways. Firstly, it allowed any visitor free, unrestricted access to hard-core pornographic video promos/trailers and still images featuring real sex in explicit detail. Secondly, access to the full videos was open to any visitor who paid a fee. As the service accepted payment methods such as the most widely used payment by debit cards. ATVOD ruled that the service had also failed to put in place effective access controls in relation to the full videos. As a result of ATVOD’s action, the service provider removed all explicit hard-core material from the free-to-view sections of the service, and restricted access to such material to persons able to provide evidence that they are over 18, for example by presenting a valid credit card. The Studio66 TV service was found to have committed one breach of the statutory rules. The service did not offer free, unrestricted access to hard-core pornographic material, but did provide such material to any visitor who paid a fee. As the service accepted payment methods such as debit cards, ATVOD ruled that the service had failed to put in place effective access controls in relation to the explicit pornographic material. As a result of ATVOD’s action, the service provider restricted access to explicit hard-core material to persons able to provide evidence that they are over 18, for example by presenting a valid credit card. The Abused Piggy service was also found to have committed one breach of the statutory rules. Although the full catalogue of material could only be viewed by adults, the service also offered unrestricted, free-to-view access to a sample video featuring real sex in explicit detail, and to still images featuring real sex in explicit detail and strong fetish material. As a result of ATVOD’s action, the service closed. So one service closed and the others severely restricted to customers with credit cards; who are willing to pay before they see what they would be getting; and who get to notice a site that has got nothing but a few softcore pictures to trying and attract surfers passing briefly by.

So ARE UK Kids Depraved and Corrupted?…ATVOD tries to convince lords and banks to ban Brits from foreign porn websites

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See video from parliamentlive.tv

Media Convergence Witnesses Peter Johnson, CEO, and Ruth Evans, Chair, ATVOD pitched their case to a House of Lords Committee about why the banks should be dragooned into banning internet porn. Interestingly, the ATVOD pair admitted that porn is the only issue that ATVOD has any complaints to look into. The other 3 areas of the ATVOD remit, sponsorship, product placement and inciting hatred have only resulted in 1 complaint between them, and that was rejected. So perhaps it isn’t surprising that ATVOD need to big up the child protection issue, otherwise they may be out of a job. The basic argument for enlisting the banks is that ATVOD suffocation of British companies achieves little apart from driving business offshore. then they need something to attack foreign businesses. And banking payment systems have been suggested as the tool. However because adult porn is basically legal, then the banks will probably not want to get involved. But ATVOD claim that the Obscene Publications Act (OPA) makes it illegal for kids to see as it supposedly ‘depraves and corrupts’ them. ATVOD therefore claim that adult porn available to under 18s is therefore illegal under the OPA and hence the banks could be reasonably asked to ban payments services from porn websites. The ATVOD pair admitted though that the OPA is hardly used with about 8 convictions in the last year. Of course Johnson and Evans didn’t mention the fundamental flaw in their claims. How can the depiction of sex, something that nearly everybody does, be so harmful to under 18s. Especially as they are well prepared for sex via ongoing sex education and the simple fact that it is probably near the number one topic of conversation for nearly all of society, particularly teenagers. Porn may be undesirable, and embarrassing to parents but can it really ‘seriously harm children’ or else ‘deprave and corrupt’ them.  And if it does, we should surely know about it, because they all watch the stuff anyway.

But then all the world’s nutters will then want the banks to enforce their pet prohibitions…Self important ATVOD think that banks should enforce an UK ban on payments to international porn websites

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Presumably ATVOD are feeling a bit bad that they are totally suffocating British companies. Maybe they feel that they could level up the playing fields a little by applying their empoverishing ideas to the rest of the world. See article from dailymail.co.uk

The Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) has written to Culture Secretary Maria Miller proposing that banks should withhold payment processing to international porn sites that don’t implement its ludicrously impractical age verification requirements. ATVOD urged the Government to target banks and payment processors which facilitate the provision to UK consumers of hardcore pornography without age verification. It claims that blocking payments, estimated to total about ฃ 180million a year from British customers, would be a significant step towards child internet safety. Under the proposal, banks and other payment processors would receive a blacklist of all companies making pornography available without extreme age verification. The banks would then be responsible for ensuring that no British customer could make a payment to any of those companies. Peter Johnson, of ATVOD, also claimed that overseas companies are potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Act. He admitted that the most popular porn sites often offer free hardcore pornographic images and video clips. He added: Banks will deploy lots of arguments as to why they shouldn’t be the gatekeepers for this. ‘But following the money and making it difficult for these sites to earn it would be a powerful step towards reducing children’s exposure to hardcore pornography. The Government’s Mary Whitehouse, Claire Perry welcomed the proposal. She said: Recruiting the financial services into the attempt to try and make websites more responsible is a very, very good idea. There is a collective responsibility here. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the report will be considered carefully as part of a recent communications review.

Top Gear and BBFC Food Elude the Grasping ATVOD…Not only is it bad law that applies expensive and heavy handed state censorship to internet VOD, the rules are impossibly vague as to who it applies to

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from atvod.co.uk See Business Channel – appeal decision [pdf] See BBC Food YouTube – appeal decision [pdf] See Top Gear YouTube – appeal decision [pdf]

Decisions uphold ATVOD determination that Business Channel was subject to regulation as an on-demand programme service, but rule that two BBC Worldwide YouTube channels were outside scope of VOD regulation An appeal by Greystone Media Ltd against an ATVOD determination in April 2011 that its web- based video on demand service The Business Channel was an on-demand programme service and therefore subject to regulation by ATVOD has today not been upheld by Ofcom. However, two further appeals against ATVOD determinations in May 2011 that BBC Worldwide was providing on-demand programme services on its YouTube channels BBC Food and BBC Top Gear have today been upheld. In order to fall victim to censorship overseen by ATVOD, a service must satisfy a number of statutory criteria, as set out in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003. One of these is that the principal purpose of the service is the provision of programmes the form and content of which are comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services. To a significant extent, the outcome of all three appeals turned on whether the relevant on demand videos were comparable to television programmes. Commenting on the decisions, ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson said: The question of whether video content is ‘comparable’ to programmes normally included in television broadcasts is far from straightforward. We will now consider the appeal decisions carefully and analyse the implications for future decisions as to whether a particular service is, or is not, subject to regulations designed to protect consumers.

Plotting Some Seriously Harmful Moralising?…DCMS and ATVOD plotting new laws on the subject of hardcore on internet VOD

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from atvod.co.uk

There not’s much to go on but I wonder what the DCMS and ATVOD are plotting. The ATVOD minutes of its September board meeting reveal the following note: The Board NOTED the update on the Communications Review as provided in the paper. It was NOTED that ATVOD were cooperating with DCMS on the preparation of an impact assessment considering proposals in relation to hardcore porn on VOD services.

Working Hard!…ATVOD investigate 1 complaint in September

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See November Newsletter [pdf] from atvod.co.uk

94 new complaints were received during September. Of these: 39 complaints were referred to the service provider in the first instance 23 were deemed to be out of remit after an initial assessment 31 are awaiting identification of the service 1 was subject to a full investigation which resulted in a determination that no breach had occurred. The complaint concerned an alleged failure to notify ATVOD of a VOD service.

Flip Off ATVOD!…Ofcom overturn ATVOD decision that a website of short video clips can be considered ‘TV Like’

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom has upheld ChannelFlip’s appeal against being designated as a VOD service (ODPS) and hence being liable to ATVOD censorship and ATVOD fees. Ofcom wrote: Ofcom’s Decision is that Channel Flip was not at the relevant time an ODPS as the form and content of the audio visual material included in that service was not comparable to the form and content of programmes normally included in television programme services. In making this Decision, Ofcom notes that a significant period has elapsed since the original ATVOD Determination and subsequent appeal, during which time there have been a number of changes in the presentation of material on the Channel Flip website (and also in the ownership of the service, which has been acquired by Shine Group, a subsidiary of News Corporation). Ofcom’s Decision is based on its review of the service at the time of the original Determination and appeal, and it is for Channel Flip and its owners to consider, on an ongoing basis and in light of this Decision, whether it starts to provide an ODPS at some point and to notify ATVOD if appropriate. At the time of ATVOD’s Determination and the subsequent appeal, Channel Flip was a free to view service marketing itself as, the UK’s finest video shows . The home page of its website, http://www.channelflip.com, featured a drop-down menu of Shows , below which was a revolving selection of Featured Videos and further menus of Our Shows and Popular Videos . Clicking on an option took the user to a page featuring the selected video, which could be viewed. The viewing page provided links to other episodes in the series (where relevant), other shows and an opportunity to comment or share via sites like Facebook. Videos could be viewed on the viewing page or enlarged to view full-screen. Shows included comedy material (e.g. David Mitchell’s Soapbox and F.C. Dave ) and other light entertainment material (e.g. Richard Hammond’s Tech Head ). Individual items were typically preceded by an advertisement or commercial sponsorship message and brief title sequence. Most of the individual items were short in duration; Richard Hammond’s Tech Head and David Mitchell’s Soapbox episodes were each around 3 to 4 minutes in length for example. However, a few were longer; as noted in the Determination, for example, episodes of F.C. Dave had a duration of about 10 minutes. Individual items ended with brief credits. It is noted that the particular items were not also broadcast on traditional television. It is further noted that series titles were consequently not likely to be very well known, although several titles featured the names of well known individuals like David Mitchell and Richard Hammond. The style of the material was not amateur (the word used by CML in its appeal request) in the sense of a home movie posted on a website like YouTube for example, but it is fair to say material appeared to be professionally made but on a limited budget (with simple, cheap graphics, for example).

Unfair Tactics…Trade body AITA has a knock at ATVOD’s unfair suffocation of UK VOD companies

Unfair Tactics…Trade body AITA has a knock at ATVOD’s unfair suffocation of UK VOD companies

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from erotictradeonly.com

The UK’s adult industry trade body AITA has once again slammed VOD regulatory body ATVOD in an end of year statement highlighting its activities during 2012. The statement reads: Like all responsible stakeholders in the adult industry AITA fully supports the goal to protect children from viewing inappropriate content and has representation on the board of IFFOR (the International Foundation For Online Responsibility). However, the stance taken by ATVOD is, in our opinion, a short term solution that penalises UK business and individuals who trade on a global stage. ATVOD themselves have admitted that it is not a level playing field as they have no jurisdiction over free tube sites hosted outside the UK. As we all know these sites have had a hard hitting effect on the adult industry with many companies ceasing to produce films and the consequent knock-on effect for producers and performers. AITA has lobbied ATVOD throughout the year and will continue pursuing a considered legal option of ATVOD’s alleged outreach and unfair tactics, whilst collaborating with our colleagues worldwide to provide a more fulfilling solution, which allows all companies in this market sector to be treated equally.

Ofcom Bans Non-Credit Card Holders from Viewing Internet Porn…Britain’s major adult VOD website fined 60,000 for failing to comply with unviably restrictive age verification requirements

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

So how can the depiction of something so basic to life, something that nearly everybody does and enjoy, something that everybody is well educated about from an early age, and something that is so commonly discussed in so many social circles, be so ‘seriously’ harmful? Ofcom and ATVOD speak of a ‘precautionary’ approach to age protection because of a lack of evidence or experts suggesting that porn actually ‘is’ seriously harmful. Undesirable maybe, but ‘seriously’ harmful? See article [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

Strictly Broadband, once a major British Video on Demand website has been fined ฃ 60,000 for breaches of the Authority for Television On Demand ( ATVOD ) Statutory Rules for Providers of Video on Demand. In particular ATVOD Rule 11: If an on-demand programme service contains material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen, the material must be made available in a manner which secures that such persons will not normally see or hear it. Thereby being supposedly in contravention of section 368E(2) of the Communications Act 2003 (the Act ). ATVOD interprets Rule 11 as requiring an effective Content Access Control System (CAC System) verifying the user is aged 18 or over where R18 equivalent material 3 is made available. They state that confirmation of ownership of a card where the card holder does not need to be 18 or over (such as a Debit, Solo or Electron card) would not be sufficient for this purpose. They also state that if age verification does not take place each time the user returns to the service, further access to such R18 content when the user returns to the service should be controlled by the use of mandatory security measures such as passwords or PIN numbers. ATVOD considered that the Service Provider had breached Rule 11 by having no CAC system in place in relation to free material on the Service, and no effective CAC system in relation to paid access material on the Service. The Service provided R18 equivalent material without adequate measures to ensure that those under 18 would not normally see or hear it. In particular ATVOD’s investigations of the Service found: a. R18 equivalent material available to view free without registration. The homepage of the Service (which appeared without a warning page as to the nature of the site’s content or other indication that the material was unsuitable for under 18s) included a significant quantity of free material including a banner window showing scrolling stills, a large number of thumbnail stills constituting links to available videos and movie trailers. These depicted R18 equivalent unsimulated sexual activity in explicit detail and could be viewed without registration or payment (i.e. there was no CAC System). b. R18 equivalent material available to view free with registration. On registration, users were provided with a free ticket to rent (i.e. view online) one full- length video for 14 days. Registered users could subsequently buy further tickets . Videos included material which was clearly R18 equivalent material involving unsimulated sexual activity in explicit detail. c. Lack of an effective Content Access Control system at point of purchase. Purchases could be made by debit card or SMS text message, neither of which did ATVOD consider to constitute an effective CAC System. The material available to purchase was R18 equivalent and extensive. The Service Provider replied to ATVOD on 4 October stating that the Service had been sold to an American company on 1 August 2012 and that the company Strictly Broadband Limited had been put into liquidation.