See article from openrightsgroup.org

We wrote last year, many times, about the discussions being hosted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport between rights holders and various intermediaries – which to normal people means companies like Internet Service Providers and search engines. One of the most recent roundtables saw the group of rights holders present search engines with a paper on how they should help tackle copyright infringement.

After two Freedom of Information requests, we have received the proposals [pdf]. Here’s the summary of what the rights holders were asking for:

• Assign lower rankings to sites that repeatedly make available unlicensed content in breach of copyright.
• Prioritise websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognised scheme
• Stop indexing websites that are subject to court orders while establishing suitable procedures to de-index substantially infringing sites
• Continue to improve the operation of the notice and takedown system and ensure that search engines do not encourage consumers towards illegal sites via suggested searches; related searches and suggested sites
• Ensure that they do not support illegal sites by advertising them or placing advertising on them, or profit from infringement by selling key words associated with piracy or selling mobile applications which facilitate infringement.

The minutes from the meeting suggest that the search engines were not impressed, and promised to write their own proposals to be discussed at a future meeting.

…Read the full article

Offsite: Google grilled by parliamentary committee

31st January 2012. See article from blogs.ft.com

Google was dragged over the coals by a British parliamentary committee, as the technology company’s approach to removing illegal content from its search results again came under scrutiny.

Several members of the joint committee on privacy and injunctions, chaired by John Whittingdale MP, repeatedly attacked Google’s representatives as they set out how the search engine seeks to balance legal challenges with freedom of expression.

Ben Bradshaw, Nadim Zahawi, and Lord Mawhinney, all criticised Google for what they saw as its failure to help victims of invasion of privacy, by removing all links to content which a judge has ruled to be illegal in the UK.

…Read the full article

From our exclusive feed with cult-labs.com
See trailer from youtube.com
See more at Melon Farmers cuts details: The Funhouse

Funhouse is a 1981 US horror by Tobe Hooper. With Elizabeth Berridge, Shawn Carson and Jeanne Austin. See IMDb

Passed 15 uncut for moderate horror, sex, violence and threat for:

• UK 2001 ArrowDrome R2 DVD  at UK Amazon released today on 30th January 2012
• UK 2011 Arrow R0 Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• UK 2007 Freemantlemedia/Arrow R2 DVD

Video Nasty

Previously it was surprisingly labelled as a video nasty. It was added to the DPP list of video nasties in September 1984 but was dropped in June 1985. It is not a particularly violent film and it has been suggested that the video appears on the list due to a confusion with another film Last House on Dead End Street that is also known as The Fun House.

DVD Extras

From promotional material:

Something is Alive in the Funhouse

The carnival is a place for fun and laughter, but not for Amy and her friends. When their childish dare to stay all night in the spooky funhouse backfires, it leaves a trail of dismembered teenagers a mile long in Tobe Hooper’s classic video nasty era slasher.

Will anyone escape the clutches of the stumbling madman that stalks to sideshow? Is there no end to the carnival barkers chilling sadism? The only way to find out is ascend into the funhouse, where the games have no rules and the only prize on offer is a grisly demise.

Join us in The Funhouse. So much fun that you’ll never leave…Alive!

Arrowdrome is a fleapit selected library of cult films; violent, horrific, sleazy, exploitative.

DVD Extras:

• a reversible sleeve of original artwork
• a collector’s booklet by author Kim Newman!
• an interview with director Tobe Hooper
• trailer

See article from openrightsgroup.org

Open Rights Group and Tor have established that UK mobile networks such as Vodafone, O2 and 3 are blocking UK users’ access to Tor’s primary website (meaning the  Tor Project website, rather than connections to the Tor network) on pre-paid contractless accounts.

Tor helps people stay anonymous online. Some examples of how it has been used include those trying to avoid oppressive state censorship in places such as Iran, through to abuse victims in the UK.

There is a blog post by Jacob Appelbaum with more technical details about the blocking on UK mobile networks over at the Tor blog.

Searching for torproject.org reveals that it is blocked because it falls into the category of anonymiser. (Orange also say that they block content that falls into the anonymiser category – but it does not seem that Tor is blocked on Orange.) It’s unlikely that mobile operators are targeting Tor, and more likely that anonymisation tools generally are blocked.

It was initially established that Tor was blocked initially through the new tool blocked.org.uk. openrightsgroup.org are asking for help in monitoring how blocking on mobile networks works by reporting when you come across incorrectly applied blocks.

Open Rights Group will be meeting with mobile operators over the next few weeks to talk about making sure that they can both help parents manage their children’s mobile Internet use and avoid clumsy implemented blocking. Some are better at aspects of this than others (Orange provide an overview of the categories they block, for example.) But none implement a transparent and clear policy that puts users in charge.

See article from thehunsburyherald.com

MP Andrea Leadsom has long been campaigning that kids are shown sex education material that is too mature for them. She is suggesting that BBFC should rate such material prior to its use in schools etc. She is probably onto a loser though, as the BBFC would surely give a well considered rating, with no room whatsoever for any moral/religious/decency angle  that Leadsom may be hoping for. It is hard to imagine that the BBFC would be far out of line with the education experts that are currently approving the material for school use anyway.

Nevertheless Leadsom has had a meeting with the BBFC to discuss the possibility of the body rating school sex education material.

The BBFC were reported to have expressed surprise that the BBC do not have their sex education material rated when they voluntarily have programmes such as The Blue Planet rated, despite there being no sensitive or controversial content and no requirement to have it rated as it is a documentary.

Leadsom said:

It seems bizarre that when some parents are so deeply concerned at what they consider to be sensitive material being shown to their children, the BBC and Channel 4 have chosen not to have their SRE material rated by an independent agency.

See article from chicagotribune.com

Fox has made cuts to its new movie offering This Means War. The Studio has now cut out a few sex jokes from actress Chelsea Handler, according to a source close to the project.

The cuts were to avoid the R Rating handed down by the US film censors and obtain a PG-13 instead.

Before making cuts Fox did in fact try to appeal against the R Rating but the appeal was turned down.

This Means War is directed by McG and stars Chris Pine, Tom Hardy and Reese Witherspoon. Pine and Hardy play best friend CIA operatives who fall for the same woman.

See article from bbfc.co.uk

The latest episode 3 of the BBFC podcast series features the latest film and BBFC news.

The topic for discussion is classifying sex and sex references, across the age categories.

See article from mashable.com

Twitter is giving itself the facility to withhold content in specific countries, while keeping that content available for the rest of the world, the company has announced.

Until now, the only way for Twitter to censor content was to universally eliminate it from the site. This change means content deemed inappropriate by a specific government can be withheld locally, explains a blog post called The Tweets Still Must Flow.

When we receive a request from an authorized entity, we will act in accordance with appropriate laws and our terms of service, a Twitter rep told Mashable.

If and when content is withheld, affected users will be notified of either an account or tweet’s censorship. Twitter will make that decision public on Chilling Effects, through an expanded partnership that charts Cease and Desist Notices.

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The ASA is now investigating Snickers’ digital advertising campaign – in which Ferdinand, Price, Ian Botham and X Factor finalist Cher Lloyd posted messages on Twitter promoting the chocolate bar. They all received payment from the chocolate bar company to do so.

The ASA is now investigating whether the celebrities’ first teaser tweets should have indicated that they were part of an advert and whether the final reveal tweet alongside of themselves holding the chocolate, made it clear enough that the tweet was an advert.

The promotion of the chocolate bar via Twitter also ignores the Office of Fair Trading’s advice that celebrities should make it clear when they promoting or endorsing a product. The OFT has warned companies that deceptive advertising has to stop. An OFT spokesman said: Online advertising and marketing practices that do not disclose they include paid for promotions are deceptive under trading laws.

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

Ricky Gervais: Science
Channel 4, 14 October 2011, 22:35

Ricky Gervais: Science was a programme featuring a stand-up show by the comedian Ricky Gervais. This post-watershed programme focussed on Ricky Gervais’s outspoken thoughts on a variety of topics including racism, fame, obesity, religion and language.

At one point during his routine, Ricky Gervais referred to the singer Susan Boyle, and he made the following remark:

Look at Susan Boyle. If you can. Fucking hell! Jesus Christ. Oh. Shocking. Be fair though, „cause usually in the music industry it’s all about image isn’t it, you can’t just have a great voice and a great talent… but I don’t think she’d be where she was today if it wasn’t for the fact that she looked like such a fucking mong.

The comedian then proceeded to debate with an imaginary complainant who might object to his use of the word mong on television:

mong?. Yeah he did. Yeah. You can’t say „mong?. You can. It’s fucking easy. It’s one of the easiest words to say, it’s like [mouths the word while he says it] „mong?, it’s like, you just need lips, „mo…?, even mongs can say it, that’s part of the beauty of the word.

He continued in the same vein.

Ofcom received three complaints about Ricky Gervais’s comments. They concerned his repeated use of the word mong, which complainants regarded as offensive because of its derogatory association with Down’s Syndrome.

Ofcom considered Rule 2.3 of the Code, which states:

In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context… Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.

Ofcom Decision: Not in Breach of Rule 2.3

We noted that Ricky Gervais’s example about how the meaning of words changes by saying:

When I came here tonight I called you all „cunts?, remember? That used to be an insult, but now it’s a term of endearment. So words change. Okay.

In Ofcom’s view, while this clearly drew the focus of the routine on to the subject of how words change, thereby potentially minimising the offence, it was nevertheless clearly also done in a tongue-in-cheek way. This may have caused some viewers to question his assertion that he had not used either the words cunt or mong in an intentionally offensive way.

However we considered that the degree of offensiveness was reduced to some extent by many in the audience knowing Ricky Gervais’ reputation for acerbic, controversial and challenging humour, and understanding that Ricky Gervais was likely to have been being knowingly disingenuous when he said the word mong was no longer linked with Down’s Syndrome, and that the word cunt was now a term of endearment. Ofcom considered that the material would not have exceeded viewers’ expectations for Ricky Gervais’s type of humour.

Ofcom also had regard to the fact that Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster with a unique statutory remit to broadcast a range of high quality and diverse programming, and this may include programming that is provocative and controversial.

We noted that the programme began at 22:35, more than an hour and a half after the watershed, and that therefore most viewers of the programme would have been expecting stronger and more challenging content.

We also took into account that Channel 4 brought the challenging nature of the content to the attention of viewers with a warning at the start of the programme, which stated that it would contain strong language and adult humour.

We therefore concluded that several aspects of this content had the potential to cause considerable offence. However, on balance, this potential offence was justified by the context of this provocative comedy routine challenging the evolution of words, as broadcast with a warning as part of a late night comedy show on Channel 4. Channel 4 therefore applied generally accepted standards, and the broadcast of Ricky Gervais’ comments was not in breach of Rule 2.3.

Ofcom takes this opportunity to remind all broadcasters that its recent 2010 research shows that the word mong has the potential to be highly offensive to many people, and so broadcasters should take great care with its use.

See article from asa.org.uk

A magazine ad, for the clothing brand Bench, appeared in the spring 12 issue of Drapers Streetwear. It featured young people, who were on sofas in a backstage setting. There were crushed cups on the floor and various items, including more cups, drinks cans, fruit, bottled water and unlabelled alcohol bottles, were shown on a coffee table.

A complainant challenged whether the ad was irresponsible, because she believed it was likely to appeal particularly to people aged under 18.

ASA Decision: Complaint not upheld

The ASA noted the ad included scenes from a backstage setting, which we considered were likely to appeal to under-18s who saw it, by being associated with youth culture. We also noted, however, the ad appeared in a trade-specific publication that was targeted at those aged over 18 years. We considered it was unlikely that under-18s would see the ad and therefore that its appeal to that age group was limited by it being targeted. Because it was not directed at people under 18, we concluded that the ad did not breach the Code.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Responsible advertising) and 18.1, 18.14 and 18.15 (Alcohol) but did not find it in breach.