Suffocating UK Business…Ofcom fine Playboy TV 100K for not implementing impossibly restrictive child protection rules on its website

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from media.ofcom.org.uk

Ofcom has fined Playboy ฃ 100,000 for failing to protect children from supposedly seriously harmful pornographic material. Two websites owned by Playboy (Playboy TV and Demand Adult) allowed users to access hardcore videos and images without having the required controls in place to check that users were aged 18 or over. Unlike other pornographic websites, Video on Demand websites are regulated by Ofcom and the Authority for Video On Demand (ATVOD). Ofcom concluded that Playboy’s failure to protect children from potentially accessing these sites was serious, repeated and reckless. There are a number of controls that websites can use to verify the age of users. This includes asking for credit card details before any adult content is made accessible. Credit cards, unlike debit cards, are not available to under 18s. Unfortunately for UK business, a large proportion of potential customers do not hold credit cards. And of those that do, few are willing to type in the onerous details required just to take a look round the site to see if they are interested in subscribing. Some don’t want the hassle, and some don’t trust porn websites enough to hand out credit card details to sites they have not even been able to have a look round yet. Surely it would at least be possible for debit cards to introduce a flag to indicate that the holder is known by the bank to be over 18. Playboy TV and Demand Adult had breached UK rules by having by only have a warning and a self declaration of age in place. Both sites had hardcore imagery available before subscribing and both sites accepted debit cards for full access to video on demand. Ofcom claimed that due to the serious nature of these breaches, the following financial penalties have been imposed on Playboy: Demand Adult: ฃ 65,000 Playboy TV: ฃ 35,000 Thankfully there are plenty of foreign businesses to support that are able to provide customers with what they are seeking.

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.

Ofcom Shares its Plans…New UK measures to protect online copyright and inform consumers

Read more Ofcom Internet Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  press release from  media.ofcom.org.uk See next round of Ofcom consultation from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk See also New Details from a consumer perspective from  torrentfreak.com See also New details from an ISP perspectivefrom  publicaffairs.linx.net

Internet users will be encouraged to download music and films through legal channels under measures outlined today by Ofcom. Ofcom has published a draft code for consultation that would require large internet service providers (ISPs) to inform customers of allegations that their internet connection has been used to infringe copyright. The code, which Ofcom is required to publish under the Digital Economy Act 2010, includes measures to help inform the public and promote lawful access to digital content such as music and films. When notifying customers of reported infringements, ISPs must explain the steps subscribers can take to protect their networks from being used to infringe copyright and tell them where they can go to find licensed content on the internet. Copyright owners are expected to invest in awareness campaigns to help educate consumers about the impact of copyright infringement and further to develop attractive online services to offer their content. Ofcom will report regularly to the Government on the effectiveness of both the code and these broader initiatives from copyright owners. Claudio Pollack, Ofcom’s Consumer Group Director, said: These measures are designed to foster investment and innovation in the UK’s creative industries, while ensuring internet users are treated fairly and given help to access lawful content. Ofcom will oversee a fair appeals process, and also ensure that rights holders’ investigations under the code are rigorous and transparent. How the code will work The code will initially cover ISPs with more than 400,000 broadband-enabled fixed lines — currently BT, Everything Everywhere, O2, Sky, TalkTalk Group and Virgin Media. Together these providers account for more than 93% of the retail broadband market in the UK. The draft code requires ISPs to send letters to customers, at least a month apart, informing them when their account is connected to reports of suspected online copyright infringement. If a customer receives three letters or more within a 12-month period, anonymous information may be provided on request to copyright owners showing them which infringement reports are linked to that customer’s account. The copyright owner may then seek a court order requiring the ISP to reveal the identity of the customer, with a view to taking legal action for infringement under the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988. Copyright owners can already seek such court orders under existing law, but the Code is designed to enable them to focus legal action on the most persistent alleged infringers. Appeals Customers would have the right to challenge any allegation of infringement through an independent appeals body. Ofcom will appoint this body and require it to establish transparent, accessible appeal procedures. Copyright owners will need Ofcom approval of their procedures for gathering evidence of infringement before they can be used under the scheme. Changes to the code The key proposals of the first draft code, on which we consulted in May 2010, are unchanged in the code published today. However a number of revisions have been made, including: Evidence-gathering procedures: copyright owners’ procedures for gathering evidence of infringement must now be approved by Ofcom, rather than by the copyright owners themselves. Ofcom plans to sponsor the development of a publically-available standard to help promote good practice in evidence gathering; Notification letters: ISPs must now include, in letters to subscribers, the number of copyright infringement reports connected to their account. Appeals: Ofcom has decided that subscribers should have 20 working days to appeal an allegation of infringement. Following a direction from the Government, Ofcom has removed the ability for subscribers to appeal on any grounds they choose; they must now do so on grounds specified in the Digital Economy Act. Beyond the code, the Digital Economy Act outlined a process for further measures which the Secretary of State might consider to help reduce online copyright infringement. These would require ISPs to take steps (such as internet bandwidth reduction, blocking internet access or temporarily suspending accounts) against relevant subscribers in certain circumstances. However, those measures could only be considered after the Code has been in force for at least 12 months, and would require further legislation and approval by Parliament. They would also require Ofcom to establish a further independent appeals process with judicial oversight. Next steps Ofcom will now consult on the revised draft code.2 Subject to further review by the European Commission, it will be laid in Parliament around the end of 2012. ISPs will then prepare to meet their obligations, and Ofcom will appoint an appeals body. Ofcom currently expects the first customer notification letters to be sent in early 2014. Ofcom will review the criteria for applying the code to ISPs once the obligations have been up and running for six months. The revised draft code and consultation, which closes on 26 July 2012, can be found here. The code includes provisions for sharing of costs between copyright owners and ISPs, as set out in a draft Statutory Instrument on costs being laid in Parliament by the Government. Ofcom is today also publishing a consultation on how these costs are allocated. This consultation closes on 18 September 2012. See next round of Ofcom consultation

Worldwide Censorship…ATVOD told to get their hands off BBC Worldwide service operating from Italian Mediaset platform

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from atvod.co.uk See Ofcom Appeal Decision re BBC Worldwide [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk

ATVOD responded to Ofcom’s decision to overrule an ATVOD determination that a BBC Worldwide VOD service was subject to ATVOD censorship: Decision turned on new evidence not made available to ATVOD An appeal by BBC Worldwide against an ATVOD determination that it was providing an on demand programme service on the Italian Mediaset platform has been upheld by Ofcom. In order to fall within the scope of the regulations overseen by ATVOD, a service must satisfy a number of statutory criteria, as set out in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003. In 2011, BBC Worldwide asked ATVOD to determine whether its involvement in the provision of programmes made available on demand on the Mediaset platform in Italy constituted provision of an on demand programme service. The decision turned on whether BBC Worldwide or Mediaset exercised general control over the selection and organisation of the programmes comprising the relevant video on demand service. The ATVOD decision had been taken on the basis of contractual evidence provided by BBC Worldwide following a request by ATVOD for all relevant information. Ofcom’s decision to uphold the appeal takes into account new evidence from BBC Worldwide which was not made available to ATVOD at the time of its Determination. Commenting on the decision, ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson said: This is a complex area and the appeal system is a vital part of the process, giving service providers, in particular, greater clarity over issues such as where regulatory responsibility lies when two or more parties are involved. In this case, it is unfortunate that ATVOD was not provided with all relevant information at the appropriate time – doing so ensures that unnecessary regulatory costs are avoided.

Ofcom Announce a Performance Review of ATVOD…An aborted ludicrous flat rate fee structure, rules that suffocate the nascent adult VOD industry, expensive fees just to adjudicate on a handful of complaints. ATVOD will pass with flying colours

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

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

Christopher Wollard, group director of Ofcom, has written to ATVOD: Two years ago, Ofcom designated ATVOD (the Authority for Television on Demand) as co-regulator of editorial content included in on-demand programme services (‘ODPS’). Paragraph 13 of the Designation says that: The Designation shall be subject to a formal review by Ofcom at the expiry of two years from the date of this Designation taking effect [i.e. 18 March 2012]. We propose to take the opportunity of the formal review of the Designation to take a broader look at how co-regulation is working. To this end, the terms of the review, which have been agreed by Ofcom’s Content Board, are to: (a) assess whether Ofcom’s tests for co-regulation are still being met, and that ATVOD remains an appropriate regulatory authority (b) consider how ATVOD is discharging the designated functions and whether it is meeting the obligations and conditions (c) identify any issues arising from the co-regulation of ODPS that would merit further consideration (d) consider whether to continue the designation, and if so, whether there are any aspects of the designation that may require amendment Ofcom are keen to hear from stakeholders, particularly VOD providers. Contributions are invited up until 21st May 2012. Ofcom expect to announce the results of the review in summer 2012.

Protect Us from the Protectors…Ofcom plugging away at the notion that people would like to see TV style censorship applied to the internet

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from ipsos-mori.com See also Protecting Audiences report [pdf] from stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk See also Regulation is dead: long live the independent TV viewer? from newstatesman.com

Ofcom commissioned Ipsos MORI to survey audiences to understand attitudes towards content regulation; and how far, and in what ways, the public expects it should be protected in a world where content can be accessed in such a broad range of ways. The report Protecting audiences in a converged world is based on findings from seven pairs of workshops conducted across the UK, each of which had around 20 participants. Fieldwork took place in June and July 2011. Key findings include: Protecting minors, and protection from harm, were considered to be the most important areas for future regulation. Offence is very important to some, but not at all important to others. Impartiality, privacy and fairness were usually considered to be relatively less important. But a wide range of views were expressed, depending on whether participants considered the areas to be an important principle to uphold or personally relevant. Knowledge of current content regulation is high for broadcast services, but lower for other services like catch up and VoD (video on-demand). Viewers have high expectations of content regulation on broadcast television, and associated VoD and catch-up services. Other online audio-visual content is seen to be different from broadcasting content and people have generally lower expectations about regulation in this area. Converged TVs and devices, which incorporate broadcast, VoD and open internet services, are considered to be closer to a TV-like experience — and have a higher expectation of regulation — than the open internet. It is particularly important to protect vulnerable people in this environment. Technology use and social attitudes were found to be the most influential factors in influencing people’s views on the future of content regulation.

Censorship on Demand…TV Censor suggests that video on demand should be censored more like TV than internet

Read more Ofcom Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from media.ofcom.org.uk

Ed Richards, the boss of Ofcom made a speech to the Oxford Media Convention on the 25th January 2012. He repeatedly alluded to more censorship for the internet and video on demand in particular. He said: In between the twin poles of linear TV and the open internet, it becomes quite interesting. When something looks, feels and acts like TV, but is delivered over the internet and into people’s living rooms, we need something that meets audiences’ expectations and provides the right degree of reassurance. It is here that such services intersect with the views and concerns expressed by the participants in our research and where greater assurance than currently on offer may need to be considered. It seems undesirable for these services to be subject to full broadcasting style regulation — by and large they belong to a different form of service and come from a very different context. But we do need to consider whether to develop the approach in relation to existing co-regulation for video on demand to offer greater assurance and to ensure there is public trust in the approach to regulation as these services become more and more pervasive and significant. In the case of video-on-demand services, our research shows that protection of minors and the risk of harmful content is the most likely focus. And our experience of broadcast regulation suggests that privacy and fairness for individuals are also areas that need careful exploration. In this context I wonder therefore whether there may be a fairly simple opportunity to establish a core set of principles and aims which are held in common across a diverse media terrain with different regulatory environments. Such a set of core principles could be established between the regulators that emerge from the current debate. They might aim to articulate the minimum standards which we would like to see in the UK, regardless of the nature of the service or its specific regulatory setting. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem. The Ofcom Broadcasting code is remarkably close to the BBC’s editorial guidelines. The PCC Code and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code share many of the same objectives, principles and indeed requirements, although the range of issues in the Ofcom Code is, for obvious reasons, significantly more extensive. … But we take an interest in the debate because over time, and quite quickly in some cases, the difference between video on demand content and that of increasingly video rich digital newspapers may well diminish. In thinking about an approach to media regulation for the next decade or more, it is as well to have an eye on the direction in which the tide is flowing. More prosaically, we might be able to offer some assistance from what we have found to be necessary for regulation to be effective. In our experience there are some critical features of regulatory systems which need to be present, or largely present, in order to ensure effectiveness and in turn to build and sustain public trust. …Read the full article

Who Pays the Ferryman?…Ofcom confirms on appeal that TV channels are responsible for paying the exorbitant ATVOD fees rather then VOD platform provider, Virgin

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from atvod.co.uk

ATVOD welcomes Ofcom appeal decision that it was correct to determine that three Viacom companies were responsible for VOD services featuring their content on the Virgin Media platform Appeals by Viacom companies Nickelodeon UK Limited, The Paramount Partnership and MTV Networks Europe against ATVOD determinations that they respectively hold regulatory responsibility for the Nickelodeon, Comedy Central and MTV video on demand content on the Virgin Media platform, have today not been upheld by Ofcom. The decision means that the three Viacom companies rather than Virgin Media are responsible for ensuring that the services comprising their video on demand programmes on the Virgin Media platform comply with the statutory rules which apply to On Demand Programme Services. The decision turned on the definition of editorial responsibility as defined in section 368A of the Communications Act 2003, which states that a person has editorial responsibility for a service if that person has general control over what programmes are included in the service and over the manner in which those programmes are organised within the service. Welcoming the decision, ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson said: This is a complex area and the appeal system is a vital part of the process, giving service providers, in particular, greater clarity over where regulatory responsibility lies.