Need help with the ATVOD rules

[a m playlist]

rgb wrote:

> I believe it's no longer viable trying legally to run an adult
> video site where "editorial responsibility" lies in the UK.

I don't know about that. Of the UK sites I have surfed of late, a number of them appear to be paying lip service to ATVOD rules (not that I am particularly familiar with the ATVOD rules!).

And what if you wanted to run a free to view adult video site from the UK - would the ATVOD really be prepared to take such a site to Court? And if such a site was taken to Court, would a magistrate/jury really be prepared to side with the ATVOD? (And don't give me the protecting the children argument because that is just rot!)

[rgb]

Well, I am familiar with ATVOD rules because I have been effectively closed down by them and have been engaged in phone calls and correspondence with them. ATVOD doesn't take anyone to court - they don't have the money - they refer the case to OFCOM who have the power to fine you and close you down. You can then appeal by judicial review, but that would be expensive. In the present climate, whatever the truth about child protection, the phrase has magical powers in a court and no judge wants to be seen to support nasty pornographers.

[a m playlist]

rgb wrote:

> Well, I am familiar with ATVOD rules because I have been
> effectively closed down by them and have been engaged in phone
> calls and correspondence with them. ATVOD doesn't take anyone
> to court - they don't have the money - they refer the case to
> OFCOM who have the power to fine you and close you down. You
> can then appeal by judicial review, but that would be
> expensive. In the present climate, whatever the truth about
> child protection, the phrase has magical powers in a court and
> no judge wants to be seen to support nasty pornographers.

What if you're not prepared to pay the fine? Won't OFCOM have to take you to Court, then? And how do you go about closing down a website? Get bailiffs around to take away your server?

[rgb]

If I followed your advice, I'd be in jail by this time next year for non-payment of a fine and contempt of court for ignoring an injunction to close down a website.

If it was that easy to avoid ATVOD, the big names (and a lot of the little ones) in this business wouldn't have bothered moving their editorial functions abroad.

[paul jones]

You don't pay the fine, you get into contempt territory, go to jail.

Or go bankrupt and be unable to pay for your server.

It's easy to shout that other people should fight, when it's not your balls, house and pension on the line.

The only effective tactic would be to go for judicial review, but if you lose, see above para.

[a m playlist]

rgb wrote:

> If I followed your advice, I'd be in jail by this time next
> year for non-payment of a fine and contempt of court for
> ignoring an injunction to close down a website.

I appreciate, rgb, that you don't want to spend time in jail and be lumbered with a criminal record, and what about to say next is easy for me not being a producer, but I do wish someone would stand up to ATVOD/OFCOM in this instance.

All this UK sites having to sign up to ATVOD and "child protection" one-track campaigners looking compel people to "opt in" if they want to view adult websites is really doing my head in.

It's all a sign to me that too many people in this world still can't grasp the fact that there is nothing wrong with consenting adults watching other consenting adults partaking of filmed/photographed recreational sex purely for entertainment purposes.

[lowerloft]

Why not join AITA and add your voice to the concerns they are raising with ATVOD.

Together we are stronger http://www.aita.co.uk

[rgb]

I agree with you entirely, a m playlist. ATVOD actually has no problem with consenting adults watching other consenting adults......etc. The problem is that their idea of child protection is incompatible with an adult website making a profit due to the requirements of their "Content Access Control System"

It's hard enough trying to beat the system in this country even when you stand on the moral high ground, e.g against starting unjustified foreign wars, but when the mood of the country is child protection at all costs, and the prime minister himself likes to intervene in these issues because he is the father of young children, the porn industry is on a hiding to nothing trying to change it.

Having said that I bet if the gay porn guys made an issue of this and turned it into a gay rights homophobic case, it might just counter the child protection angle. It worked with the recent fisting and pissing judgement.

[Wildfowler]

Thanks for all the input guys

I have talked to verotel and they say they only take credit card payments so I am covered on that front

as for the hardcore pics I see what you have done Rob

so nude girls are fine and girls opening there pussy and getting fucked with toys are ok and faces covered in cum but show a cock and that is it game over?

I think i can change the pics around so they are all clean and edit the video so the samples are clean too but who will join a hardcore porn site where they cant see any of the action before payment?

James Wildfowler

[rgb]

Wildfowler wrote:

... so nude girls are fine and girls opening there pussy and
> getting fucked with toys are ok and faces covered in cum but
> show a cock and that is it game over?

I don't believe that's right, James. They sent me screen grabs from my site showing penetration with toys as an example of what was not allowed (perhaps I should report them for sending pornography through the post !laugh!) . I don't think pussies being held open are allowed either as that is R18 level. I get the feeling that a woman naturally naked in any position is ok.